Thanks for those who pointed out my quoting of the stat about EV fires was incomplete. The entire quote should have included the denominator for how many EV fires there were versus how many were on the road. From the same article it does that math to show that "there's a 1 in 38,000 chance of fire" for EVs and Hybrids which means "gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles are 29 times more likely to catch fire than EVs and hybrids." - HOWEVER - Age of the vehicle is the most important factor. And since EVs are so new (relatively) we really don't have solid enough data yet. However, the data we do have is looking good for EVs. More to come...
12:54 your fire data analysis is worthless. how many total vehicles are used. if there are 10 EVs in sweden and 5 of the catch fire, that's 50% if there are 1,000,000 EVs and 5 catch fire, that's... a lot less. the data presented does not address totals fires per type (EV/ICE) as a percentage of total vehicles per type. also there is no data regarding how dangerous ICE/EV fires are or how hard they are to put out.
Except when you factor in the damage caused by the different types of fires or the need to store EVs in underground parking facilities moving forward or the potential that as the current crop of cheap Chinese EVs degrade in a way that increases the amount of fires. You selectively (and I believe deliberately) cherry pick the information you present. The NSW fire service have some input that you probably should research, they would definitely be considered experts in the field.
We do have data on how newer cars are not as likely to catch fire except the curve seems to have flattened out, newer cars are better but not much better than cars that are 5 years old.
@@isaac827 The only EVs I know a burnt off in higher amounts were Cevrolet Bolt EV ans EUV. GM did produce them with pouch cells from LG. Elon Musk told GM that this won't be a good idea because pouch cells have a lack in mechanical stability. Not good when you know that a car has to absorb a lot of hits from the road and vibrations. The best batteries are already made in China. They are simply the market leader for batteries. To call them down for low quality is simply a lie. But of course you can get chep batteries who have failed in testing them and therefore didn't got a badge from the manufacturer. But as long this batteries a still have some funtionality, some resellers take the rubbish and sell them for much less. So never buy that cheap, because you will most likely be the victim of such behavior. But be aware of, that not a single Chinese car manufacturer has a need of bad publicity , because of failing and burning batteries. What is true also, is a series of burned BYDs in China. But it came out soon, that this were plugin hybrids which caught fire in there ICE compartments first... A lot of burning "EV fires" are hybrids after a nearer look. Only GM I know for an EV which were just burning off by left alone in a parking lot or worse in the garage next to the house. Pouch cells ar not a good idea to use them in EVs, that's for sure now.
Cobalt isn't just used in batteries, it's been used in the desulphurisation process of fuel for ages. Not sure the oil companies will be ethically sourcing 100% of the cobalt they use
And the petroheads say, "but it is a catalyst and is not used up." Guess what, the cobalt inn EV battery is not used up either. It is too valuable to discard, so it is recycled at the end of the battery's life.
@@EnriqueAThieleSolivan Sailing into Vancouver Harbour there's a big bright yellow pile on the port side. Pretty sure it was Vancouver. West coast of Canada port anyway. We weren't carrying it so I'm not sure about much more than a big yellow pile of nasty.
They most certainly aren't...... As I understand it, most EV manufacturers have signed agreements to use ethically soured materials, but the oil companies have not.
I really think the people that keep saying hydrogen is the way forward believe you just put water in the car and it converts it to fuel. They have no idea how its made, transported or stored and the costs involved.
They believe it's more convenient as it appears similar to filling up with regular fuel, however it's very different and very difficult to do consistently and at high demand. Due to it being pressure based system. Not just volumetric flow based. It's good for long haul but not the solution for the masses.
I find it funny how these FUDs are always concerned about the combustibility of EVs and then suggest we use a highly flammable, pressurized gas as fuel.
@burgers8 rather consistently. I've noticed. Anything that goes vroom vroom. I think it's the thought of lack of control. If some of these gashuffers were forced to drive a Model S Plaid for 2 weeks, adoption rates would sky rocket. Throttle control is very addictive.
Jason Slaughter of "Not Just Bikes" did a good piece on this in his "Cities Aren't Loud: Cars Are Loud" video. Sadly electric car tire noise is also bad at high speeds, definitely better than ICE at low speeds (almost too quiet for safety). :(
Not saying that your wrong but daily ice cars arent that loud(to me anyways) when they drive pass it mostly the air you are hearing even while driving(unless you push on the accelarator harder) you wont really hear it
If you’ve read Merchants of Doubt, probably not too far-fetched. Big Oil, like Big Tobacco before it, has a well-established track record of funding deception campaigns.
@@eman67rp Agreed. The amount of capital that is available to discredit any competition to the gas/diesel/hydrogen pump (the behaviour to pump your fuel at big oil’s infrastructure as opposed to charging an EV battery at home is critical) is a lot higher than most people realize. You throw in the much higher maintenance ICE cost and the toxic tailpipe exhaust from ICE and it becomes quite obvious to the average buyer that if you’re into: lower maintenance costs, better acceleration, safety, instant torque, Over the Air Updates, no dealerships, less road noise, and only 16 moving parts… they are going to pick the EV. So naturally, big oil, looking at this future reality does not like this reality very much. Hence the propaganda campaign.
You mean like the big “influencers” that hat just got nailed by investigation on being paid by Russia to side with Russia over Ukraine? Yeah it happens everywhere.
Shell is apparently converting 1000s of gasaholeline stations to charging stations. Capitalists at work. If we are finger- pointing ..the Chicago incident was apparently orchestrated by uAvv. Aswell as hiring wannabe tree huggers to harass Giga Berlin. These hater channels mostly all use an AI voice spurting out false info loaded with FUD Piston Pundit Chase car Highway Harold
Scania trucks have been testing hydrogen fueled and electric trucks and have announced that they are not going to continue with hydrogen due to its cost and its low performance. The section of his video where he showed loads of wind turbine blades that he said was going into land fill was debunked as the recycling company was storing them in that field until they had enough to recycle as doing a few at a time is not cost effective.
The EU countries have decided to commit to providing hydrogen filling stations along motorways for trucks. Once the stations are there I think more vehicles will be made to use them. I think the plan is to build huge solar farms in Spain producing hydrogen then is transferred by pipeline to the rest of Europe.
@@shannon6876do you see that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record in the US, that the polar caps refuse to melt and The Maldives stubbornly stay above sea level? When one has a memory and can see historical records, it is harder to be fooled. Before you flip out about that statement, know that I’ve been full EV for almost two years and despise stinky exhaust and the expenses that go with it. Over 100k EV miles since 2021 and much $$$$ saved.
@@brendykes1202Maybe you missed it, but the reason it's called Global Warming and not Red, White and Blue American Warming, is because it's about the decade by decade increase in global average temperatures. It's not just about one continent or country. And scientists who study the poles are sounding ever more urgent alarms about what is happening there. The US Department of Defense certainly thinks sea level rise is a serious issue.
@@davidmenasco5743 it’s not. The ice coverage is steady to increasing. Also, the poles and Maldives aren’t in the US, you might want to work on your geography. All the dramatic predictions since the 80s have failed to materialize. In 2020 they had to take the gloom signs down in Glacier NP because the glaciers had failed to melt. A prophet is known by their accuracy and the climate profits fail harder than the guys that have been telling us since the 1800s they know when Jesus is coming back. Besides, a warmer planet supports much more life than a cold one. The massive climate danger is that the current ice age goes back into a glacial period. The increase in CO2 has been greening the planet and that’s a good thing. CO2 = green, that’s elementary school science.
@kalabash72 You will see that people will use silly arguments like that air pollution is just moved to where the electricity or the materials for the cars are produced or that evs emit much more particular matter from the tires.
Well done Ben, just so sick of the anti EV lies. People just keep repeating them straight off the internet, no sources, no balance, no debate, no thought, it’s pathetic.
The thing about hydrogen is that pretty much all the hydrogen on Earth is tied up in things like water and hydrocarbons. So in order to produce pure hydrogen, you have to knock those molecules apart, and that takes energy (and in the case of hydrocarbons, you end up producing CO2). Quite a lot of energy, actually. Then you have to transport and store it at extremely low temperatures, which comes with its own set of problems. And it's the smallest atom in the universe, so stopping it from leaking out also isn't problem free. So instead of spending all that energy - electricity, usually - on producing hydrogen so that you can use that hydrogen in a car to generate electricity, why not just send the electricity straight into EVs? You know, skip the middle man. Don't cross the stream in order to fetch water.
You're ignoring geological hydrogen which could be tapped like oil. Yes like anything that comes with issues too but it's not out of reach. It's estimated the U. S. Has large geo reserves of hydrogen. So the story isn't over yet. Will displace BEV or ICE? I don't think so but it still could have use cases. Some mega cities might make use of such an economy it just depends on a lot of factors. The next billionaires could be wildcatters risking drilling for hydrogen in the U.S.
@@Windstorm7x7-wl8ko Most of the world's hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. Most of the world's natural hydrogen reserves probably aren't financially viable to extract.
@@Windstorm7x7-wl8ko When the world's hydrogen producers prefer to spend huge amounts of energy on knocking either water or hydrocarbons apart, instead of extracting geological hydrogen, there are probably very good reasons for that. I.e., the former is way more economical than the latter. That pretty much tells me all I need to know.
@@Windstorm7x7-wl8ko - geologic hydrogen isn't a free ride and there are still many open questions remaining to be address. It some areas it requires similar approach as fracking, and often requires multiple well heads and expensive drill operations as geologic hydrogen tends to form in pockets on top of other gases or water deposits. There are questions about the extraction process given the reactivity of hydrogen and whether this will gum up extraction by reacting with surrounding rocks and minerals; one reason geologic hydrogen pockeis form is it reacts minerals forming a seal that prevents it escaping. Lastly geologic hydrogen co-exists with other gasses, particularly methane hence there are question about how these waste gasses are prevented from leaking (particularly methane due to being a powerful greenhouse gas).
people keep talking about how the electricity used in EVs are not made in a clean way. but every gas station I know of use the same electricity in addition to the gas they sell. the process of making the gas also use the same electricity.
The electricity not being clean isn't even a valid argument against EVs. No one ever said EVs alone fix all carbon emission problems. They are part of the solution, not all of it. Whether they come first, in the middle, or last, If you want to reduce carbon emissions to sustainable levels, EVs are necessarily a part of the solution.
@@patrick7228 actually it was left-wingers that are more concerned about raw material extraction including those from the global south rarely did I see conservatives say anything about it because conservatives tend to own the mining companies who extract those resources to make EVs they're getting their money regardless and in fact it's a boom for them because commodity prices for EVs have gone up significantly since then
@@enhancedutility266 I think the comment was being sarcastic. It took the need to create compassion to use to condemn making things better for the right wing to fake having compassion for the poor. .
@patrick7228 I like how they complain about Teslas Cobalt use enslaving children while on their phones, laptops & tablets all known to use Congo Cobalt. When Tesla actually acknowledged this issue, before it was an issue and voluntarily refused Congo Cobalt in their Glencor contract.
@@roguemedic I can probably see or conservatives would say about it due to the opposition of electric cars but over the years it's been the left side that made more of a stink about it especially since the mining companies like glencore had a bad reputation with the environmental and labor practices again I just don't see conservatives being upset about it that much The only thing I could find that they would be is the mandates and using taxpayer funds to fun ev companies and green energy technology companies
As a Brit I'm feeling somewhat embarrassed by this guys information. For the record: The UK's last coal fired power station is due to close at the beginning of October. Yes, that's next month as I type. (source: UK Government) Over the last year 27.9% of our electricity was generated from fossil fuel. Gas being by far the largest part of that. 38.9% from renewables. Wind being the largest part, (we don't see the sun that often 😉). 21.7% from "other" sources. Most of that is nuclear. (Source: National grid: Live)
Child labor in Congo mining for cobalt is because of capitalism, not ecology or the transition. Chocolate production has the same problem: child slaves. Do you eat chocolate?
Toyota are embracing the right fuel for the job, e.g. electric for inner city, hydrogen for long haul. At least in their eyes this is the best way forward. BMW to my knowledge are not doing any Hydrogen development?
@@benjimc1 Hydrogen problems - Hydrogen infrastructure make EV infrastructure look wonderful. - Splitting hydrogen from water takes x4 the amount of energy currently used. - Transporting the hydrogen from where it's created to where it's needed it tremendously difficult. - It's damned expensive, far more so than EVs. EVs may have their challenges, but it's got nothing on Hydrogen's issues.
All these problems are being researched. Hydrogen can be drilled for like oil or natural gas. Reservoirs have already been found . research is also underway to store hydrogen in a solid, which would make it easier and safer to transport. It does have a potential smaller footprint than BEV but not without its potential pluses.
Lovin the debunkin Ben! So many crackpot EV haters making yt videos now as they're getting clicks. They'll fade back into the shadows soon enough. I'm glad you are using your platform to set them straight.
@@JusticeAlways I truly can't see why there are so many haters. Gasaholeline has leashed us into a monopolized society for as long as anyone can remember. Electricity can be made many ways. Even DIY. Several potential highly efficient methods in the works. Only electricity has the potential to free the people of this 100yr leash. I just don't get the haters .
@@isaac827Aye, but then, if you take your very efficient small 70BHP diesel hatchback with a 40 litre tank to the services, you pump 6 weeks worth of energy for said house.
Fun fact: a Tesla Model 3 powered by electricity generated 100% from the dirtiest coal power plant on the planet would have roughly the same driving emissions as a Toyota Prius, and by extension generally still better emissions vs every other ICE car that exists
fun fact: we don't build another powerplant for BEV. BEV just gets electrical energies from pre-existed electric power grid. Most of electricities from powerplant in nowadays are wasted because powerplants cannot turn off and must keep running during night time. BEV saves those wasted electricities in it's battery so driving BEV means saving electricities that are supposed to be wasted.
@@yumyumlol-o7r I don't really understand what you are trying to say or what your point is, but that's not how electricity works at all... power plants must always be balanced for their generation against the current usage. They can't run and have the electricity go nowhere.
@@DigitalSteelWhat he 8s saying is that plugging your car in at night helps to stabilize the utility grid. As a result you also get cheaper electricity during off peak hours like at midnight 🌙.
@@jacksonbangs6603 Yes, charging or any other form of electrical use during off peak hours instead of peak hours can indeed help reduce strain on the grid, assuming you live in a place with a strained grid. You can typically tell because you will be offered 'off peak' pricing. This is not the case everywhere however.
@johnlabernik4599 Don't forget to also offset costs of subsidizing big oil Trillions every Yr. Total up big auto bail- outs before criticizing EV subsidies going to the little guy buying his car.
Here's the deal. With ICE, the pollution is fairly static. With an EV, solutions for how energy are produced are being put in to place. At least it can be dealt with. Even if some of what was said about pollution and EVs are true today, they won't be in the near future.
One thing is that none of the studies never mention the energy that it takes to get oil out ground and get the gasoline into your tank. Also, the human rights abuses of oil producing countries.
The best information I've found on Well-to-tank emissions is around 610g/CO2/litre. So an average car with a 50ltr tank has 30kg of "embodied" emissions already in it before it moves away from the pump.
@steve_787 Right, but I rarely see this in any of the studies in comparison between ICE EVs. One number that is understood is that a 4 stroke engine issue is about 20 percent efficient. So, an ICE car uses about 7kw-hrs per gallon gas burned. Does it take more than 7kw-hr of energy to go from oil in the ground to gasoline in your tank. .This information seems very guarded and hard to find.
@@rcircle2008 yeah, as you say it's not easy to find out and I never know why as an EV driver I have to include all the fuel and battery manufacturing to justify any environmental benefit but never have to take into account the fuel for an ICE 🤷♂ Had a guy once claiming that his diesel wasn't as bad as quoted by the manufacturer as there is 10% bio diesel in the fuel which is carbon natural. Yet in the same conversation then cited that electricity from biomass couldn't be counted a carbon neutral to power an EV, then had factor in all the transmission losses and then add in the 2 or 3 trees he had in his garden made his BMW cleaner to drive than any EV. Honestly couldn't make it up. I did watch a video on YT about the electricity used to make/refine fuel based on the claims from Musk a few years back that we already have enough electricity to power EV's if we just stopped refining fuel. Can't remember the title (will try to find it again) but he did a good breakdown of it based on the information he could find. It did work out that Musk wasn't right and it was more like half the energy would be freed up. But, I'd have to find it again to quote exact figures from it.
@@rcircle2008 One interesting one I did find was on NMC battery manufacturing for a battery made in China. It calculated that per 1kWh of battery storage it took 105kg/CO2 to make including extraction etc. and seems a good rule of thumb on what should be just about the worst case for battery manufacture.
For UK data on electricity generation it's well worth searching for "Grid Kate Morley", she takes live and historical data from the GB National Grid and displays it in a very readable format. It currently shows that in the last 12 months fossil fuels have made up just 27.9% of electricity generation with wind at 32.4%, and an overall average of 124g/kWhr of CO2. The anti-EV fudders are simply afraid of change.
@@DaveABerry Very true, that is a factor for many. Although when our business moved to EVs a few years ago there were two guys, same age as me (mid-50s) who were really upset about it and said they would leave. A tactful conversation revealed they were both just worried about arriving at a charger and not knowing how to use it, as an older man I suppose we expect to just know how stuff works; so also macho rubbish. The problem was solve by a few hours driving around a few chargers, both guys changed their own cars for EVs within a year.
@@garysmith5025 you are “simply afraid of change” said the Bolsheviks to the people of Russia in 1917. No, we are not afraid of your go-carts, we are afraid of communists forcibly taking our trillions of dollars to wrestle away the control of the world economy again. EVs and gas cars tried to compete 100 years ago, EVs lost. Still can’t compete without huge subsidies.
The sad thing about this video is that although it is well researched and fair in the way it discusses this subject people who watch that anti EV clown will tend to ignore you and believe what suits them. How many people with negative comments about EV’s have had first hand experience with them? I’ve owned an EV for a couple of months now and the low running cost is not the main reason I would never go back. It is superior in every way except for longer distance trips. I can put up with that because of all the other benefits. With the T M3P …..no car dealers, service centres or petrol stations , and a car that delivers the performance and handling of a pedigree car. After a night time charge it’s ready to go again. I’ve subscribed because of the rational, non emotive and factual way you have structured this video Keep up the good work but I’m afraid people only believe what they want to.
The cobalt issue is such a weird argument when you consider the human rights abuses that have gone into fossil fuel extraction and ecological destruction.
I don’t care about the global warming scenario but I do care about my city pollution. When we were locked up it was nice to see blue skies and that is what EVs would give us blue skies. 14:46 also windmill blades are getting recycled.
I think you do care about global climate warming, if you care to understand and see the consequences. Just look at Super Typhoon Yagi in Phillipines, Hainan China, Vietnam etc. The aftermath, the deaths etc. YAGI is going to be common, if you care to understand the science behind it. Oh, you cannot escape from the consequences of climate warming, we’re all on planet Earth, right?
Nicely done! I remember starting to watch that video and just turning it off... One thing I will caution you about, though, is big numbers. According to the US EPA, "Transportation" accounts for 28% of GHG. Within "Transportation", Light-Duty vehicles account for 57% of GHG. So, obviously, you would like us to concentrate on that number because 57% is a bigger number than 28%. And if we do some math, 57% of 28 is 16. So 16% of GHG emissions come from Light-Duty vehicles. Of course, that's an even smaller number so you'd like us to ignore that. I don't disagree with you, but if the argument is "Cars amount to a small fraction of total GHG emissions," saying "Don't look at those accurate numbers, look at these accurate numbers which are bigger." becomes more of an exercise in "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Probably the strongest argument for EVs at the moment is the elimination of tail pipe emissions and the positive effect it will have on health - especially in built up areas. Ben thanks for highlighting this point in your debunk.
I'd say the strongest argument for EVs is that, while the climate crisis is becoming increasingly urgent, the transition away from fossil fuels is going much too slowly. Transitioning the vehicle fleet from combustion to electric is one of about 12 major steps needed to complete the energy transition. But it's one of only two that is on track to meet the timeline target. Without the EV transition, a whole lot of people will be seriously screwed. By a whole lot, I mean about 99.5% of the world's population as of about 2050.
@@davidmenasco5743 climate change may be the most pressing reason the go EV. But unfortunately it’s not the most pressing reason in many people’s eyes. Show them the excess deaths caused by tail pipe emissions or better an asthmatic child struggling to breath then the urgency to get to zero tailpipe emissions is evident. It’s more a matter of how you convince people to go EV than the need. Both arguments are equally strong.
@@DrDave_63395 I agree that the public health implications are reason enough for the transition to BEV. I think liberating the governments of the world from the oil companies' effective veto power over policy and legislation is also reason enough. It is sad that people have so much difficulty seeing past the next five years. On the other hand, it's really only a relative handful who are aware that vehicle exhaust is causing children and teens in urban areas to die of asthma. All of this info is effectively squashed by the heavy flow of petrodollars.
@@canwelook This certainly should be done. But it would literally involve rebuilding every town and city and suburb in the country. It would involve moving half of the buildings in the United States. Compared to this daunting task, converting the vehicle fleet to full electric is mere child's play - simplicity itself.
Your charts, I believe, show the emissions from making the cars, tailpipe emissions for gas cars, and the electricity production emissions for charging EVs. BUT they completely omit the emissions from producing gasoline, am I right? Shouldn't that be counted if we're counting the emissions from producing the electricity? That would make the gas car many times worse than the EV, as there are more emissions from making the gas than burning the gas.
@@BenSullinsOfficial There is an article at Innovationorigins about this and there are some from Netherlands. The rough calculation is 30% additional CO2 for production of gasoline and 24% for production of diesel. I emailed you the link to the article and the sources are at the bottom.
@@st0il @bensullinsofficial The actual figures used in several studies (like the one from the Bundeswehrhochschule München) cites that for every 6 litres of diesel fuel the oil company has spent about 42 kWh of additional energy until the stuff was in your tank...
He is saying one thing, you are debating another. He is right about cars not making a real difference regarding the CO2 emissions when you consider that are only responsible for around 10% of emissions. And when he says covered in acid is refreshing to al that toxic gas released uhen a ev is boring and the toxic water that is infiltrating the soil. Debunk John Cadogan if you are so sure on your facts.
Whups! He was taking about % of CO2 that is transportation while your donut chart was just the breakdown of transportation CO2 by transport method. In other places I’ve seen transportation listed as something like 20-30% of CO2. Unfortunately you wound up doing apples & oranges.
It’s always interesting that people will bring up the terrible impact mining materials for batteries causes but will ignore the towns that have been evacuated and will be unlivable for 100’s of years because the coal mine caught fire. Or the huge impact fracking has. Giant oil spills covering beaches. Or even the fact that the oil & gas industry expect to lose a certain percentage of the natural gas from their pipelines that leak. While mining for batteries does have an impact so does oil and coal. You can’t recycle oil, gas, or coal once they’re burned.
the hydrogen pushers want you to think it would come from electricity and water, but they really will just reform methane. Electrolysis is one of the oldest chemical technologies and while advances have been made, it is still quite inefficient compared to stuffing those electrons directly into batteries. Once you have hydrogen it is not efficient to convert that into work either. It just can’t compete for most forms of transport. Hydrogen might have a place in long haul flight and shipping.
I think you’re reading the donut chart wrong. It looks like it’s only talking about greenhouse gasses from vehicles rather than a percentage of total greenhouse gases from other sources.
Another point to add: the manufacturing process for hydrocarbons particularly gasoline is very dangerous and a health hazard also. Gasoline additives to make vehicles cleaner burning are particularly harmful. Lookup the deaths and injury’s at the BP refinery explosion in Texas City and the Phillips explosion in Pasadena Texas. Also look at history of fires in refineries across the country. Think about health issues of benzene and hydroflouric acid to mention only a few. Do you know only brass hammers can be used in refineries because they can cause a spark..
* Hydrogen is corrosive to steel. Sure you can create special metals overall, but the cost is m7ch higher and small things like fittings are still steel. * Hydrogen has issues being transported, so you need to manufacture it near the fill-up station. Many cities don't want this. * Not many fill-up stations left worldwide, especially in the EU. Whole countries like Denmark have closed all the stations (I think Germany too)
Extremely well done. You nailed almost everything except to perhaps mention that most Chinese manufacturers use LFP batteries which do not use any nickel, and that the oil companies use significant amounts of cobalt in the manufacture of gasoline. Once again, I couldn’t have said it better than you did!
No electric cars because the thing is nobody's pushing for these electric cars they are few but the majority of us Plus the productivity of Eli muscle cars there's about a 1000 I'm sitting on the parking lot and nobody wants them we don't even want it boy bye
8:41 Non-export opinion, after looking at the charts so far: Transport is 20% of Total emmissions. Passenger cars is 60% of Transport. Passenger car emission is therefore 12% of total greenhouse emissions. Due not that some of the industrial emissions are there in support of fossil fuels for transport, so there are additional saving there.
Just to share an example. Here in Portugal we got 61% of our energy from renewable sources in 2022. Yes we are 10 million inhabitants and not 300 milion but it's proof it can be done and with a little investment we will get 100% renewable in a few more years. Although, unfortunately, we have no nuclear...
The thing the anti EVers don’t get is that the EV technology keeps improving and the arguments they use against EV adoption will be obsolete in 5 years. The main one is slow charging times. Once an EV can be charged say 200 miles in ten minutes, it will be difficult to justify buying an ICE car. And these charge times will soon be here. The other argument is cost of EV’s vrs ICE cars. Like all other electronics, prices will come down. What if EV’s become cheaper to produce than ICE cars? There is a reason the US government put a 100% tariff on Chinese EV’s. Because they are cheaper NOW than our domestically produced ICE cars!
Most car journeys are not close to 200 miles without a stop, but people think they need that range for the occasional journey where a stop for more than 5 minutes somehow becomes a massive inconvenience for them. I agree that faster charging and longer range (bigger battery capacity) eliminate these "non" issues, and we're already getting there with many higher end EVs.
@@ziploc2000 We have two EV’s and no ICE cars. Just did a 900 mile round trip in our ID.4. No problem. With one 1/2 hour charge we went 380 miles with enough range to reach a charger near our destination. Most ICE drivers stop for at least 15 minutes at the gas station while everyone goes to the bathroom and buys snacks. Another 15 minutes is no big deal. Plus you should stretch your legs after a few hours of driving.
@@tbl268EVs lost all consumer confidence.Which you can never get back, EVs are a loss due to all their complications no sense of going into them all as they are just not worth the trouble. All of the arguments for and against are pointless as these cares are dangerous and unstable. No amount of trying to fix the situation will change the now lost public perception.
Great video Ben! I will use it as a talking point when I encounter EV haters. One big point that I always come back to is that BEVs are steadily improving. Meaning that all of the points that detractors are making against EVs are becoming less of an issue, such as mining, refining, battery chemistry and production, renewable energy generation and storage, EV efficiency, and battery recycling, which are all getting better over time. And are improving relatively quickly. Whereas the only recent improvements for gas vehicles have been made by adding electric motors to improve efficiency and reduce smog output. Most likely, by 2035 the majority of these EV issues will no longer exist. But only if EV haters don't bring about more delays fighting positive change, and promoting EV fear and doubt. Backsliding to gas-only solutions. Which have brought us so many of the ecological and health problems that we have today.
Tesla began with an extremely enviable and diverse customer base. The treehuggers wanted them to save the planet. The performance junkies wanted them to dominate 0-60 and the 1/4 mile. It's wild that one company could appeal and capture both groups.
That's exactly why I got mine. I don't give a Donald Duck about the environment or hugging trees. I just wanted a car that was way cheaper to run than what I already had.
Another thing is that widespread use of EVs would help decarbonize the grid. If all EVs had vehicle-to-grid capability, and were plugged in whenever parked, they would be an incredible resource for peak-shaving and stability; removing the need for inefficient gas peaker plants and spinning reserve. All it would need is a regular outlet at each parking space (1.6kW * tens of millions of parked cars = many power stations)
@@tbl268 No. The grid would drain your battery ~5% during peak hours, then recharge it again once the demand reduces. Very much like how Virtual Power Plant schemes work with house batteries. You could opt-out if that inconveniences you, but there would be a financial incentive to stay connected and contribute to the grid.
@@tbl268The grid operator would be in control of when and which vehicles charge. So they can coordinate to avoid overheating the transformers. Once enough EVs are in each neighborhood, peak loads will be mostly handled by EVs in the same neighborhood or close by. This reduces strain on the distribution network and substation infrastructure vs what we have today. It’s all doable - I’m an engineer and have worked in this field.
As an electric car driver and an average citizen motivated to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, your description of the chart about transportation emissions seemed misleading. It sounded like you were saying 71% of total greenhouse gas emissions are from road transportation. This is actually 71% of just transportation emissions, whereas total transportation emissions are about 28% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US and 20-30% of all emissions globally per the EPA in 2022 and UN in 2021, respectively. No desire to be a know it all, but when we’re emphasizing the importance of facts and data, it’s important that we’re precise. Thanks for your awesome videos.
15:30 - Anyone that claims there going to a "Graveyard" or "Landfill" frankly has no idea what the real value of the battery is let alone the battery that is powering there devices to have this opinion. Not a single recycler I know would let a lithium cell go into the "garbage" and not fetch it out because there is money to be made in recycling by the ton. Secondly the recycling rate I got from redwoods materials tour I did in the last year was near 95% now on there end. Its frankly the future the battery business. These hit pieces get old anymore.
We will see dead EV batteries laying around uncollected in exactly the same way we currently trip over all the dead aluminum ICE engine blocks piling up beside the road after they break down...
Air pollution is my biggest argument for EVs with my rural neighbors. Fighting global warming doesn't get you anywhere with them. When I point out that every diesel mechanic I know has gotten cancer before the age of 60 then they pay attention.
Cobalt is used in vast quantities to remove sulphur as part of the oil refining process, in manufacture of stainless steel, tools and several other items. It has been happening for decades and is likely to continue doing so. This is something often ignored or not understood by naysayers such as this gentleman bashing EVs in favour of ICE vehicles.
The problem with your argument is scale. Since 2021 EVs have been the largest consumer of cobalt and in 2022 constituted 40% of use. Portable electronic device batteries accounted for another 30%. Catalyst use for ALL industries was 4%. Statista Research Department, Nov 16, 2023.
@waynerussell6401 Cobalt is fast becoming less and less important for EV battery packs as many manufacturers seek to do away with it altogether, opting for a whole range of different chemistries. It's important to note that there's more cobalt in many of our handheld devices on the cell level than there is in an EV cell. People have been using vast quantities of cobalt for decades with nary a peep of disquiet, yet all of a sudden, cobalt is bad? Not all cobalt comes from the DRC, & what does originate there, is mostly from formally organised mines with artisanal mining only representing a small fraction and of the total overall. This being said, I don't want to try to be dismissive of the somewhat poor environmental records of the DRC mining sector, nor the involvement of child labour, though I would like to point out that child labour involvement has substantially reduced, representing only about 4% of the labour force according to what an Amnesty International representative told Robert Llewellyn (Fully Charged Show) at a conference some years ago. Also, not all child labour is forced labour. In poor countries, sadly, it often comes down to the realities of having to eat, adults not necessarily being capable of working for various reasons, and whole families needing a breadwinner just to survive. Easy for those of us privileged enough to live in the rich world to be outright critical of child labour without considering the issue in the round. Obviously, it would be far better if none of this were true.
I wish that everyone who intentionally misleads the public like this could be held accountable. I have no respect for people who pass themselves off as someone with credibility who KNOW they are deceiving as many people as they can.
I've been living in Shanghai for 20 years. The air quality has changed dramatically since 2010 where it was probably the worst in the period I'm in China. During 2010 the air pollution in Shanghai would get so bad some days you can hardly see the next building! The air would be yellow in color! PM2.5 levels woudl be over 500! However, today we get many clear air days! And PM2.5 levels would be way below 50, mostly around 25. We actually get a lot of sunny blue sky days too which was very very rare 10 - 15 years ago! This is my own observation living in China which goes to show the government is doing something right in cleaning up pollution!
7:12 - Not sure on the source of the slide but if this is the UK then the power industry bit doesn't make a lot of sense. From 2010 to 2019 the CO2 per kWh dropped from 481g to 245g. From 2012 to 2019 the annual output also dropped from 318TWh per year to 262TWh. Me thinks he might have just found a slide to help his point from a global stat....
Thanks for reviewing my video, Ben. I hoped it would be more open-minded, and I don't really appreciate how you use selective editing of clips without the context or the resolution, because it might have deflated some of your arguments. But thanks for taking the time to watch.
@@johnlodge8546 In the "Special Thanks" section of the description you will find my sources, John. And the charts in the video still have the labels on them.
@@BenSullinsOfficial What's that got to do with you using selective clips to make yourself look better? My sources are listed in the "Special Thanks" in the description.
Great video. As one who owns both an EV (2022 Ford Mach-e) and an ICE (1999 Lexus SC400), I'm very familiar with all the arguments. From what I've read, even if all electricity were generated by coal, which we know it isn't (I have solar.). Also, much of the natural gas is created by reclaiming landfill gasses. But we all know that the oil industry will do whatever they can to slow EV adoption in order to protect their profits. Oh, and on the argument of incentives, the US Federal government has tons of incentives to the oil industry. i do have a buddy, who is a short-haul truck driver. He is now driving electric tractors between the Port of Los Angeles and the train yards in Ontario.
The issues with Hydrogen are multi-fold - #1 Are primary method of 'extracting it' is Methane Steam Reformation - which has a higher CO2 footprint than Coal fired power plants in terms of the amount of electricity produced in the end. #2 the 'Green' way of doing it which is electrolysis, and assuming it's from 100% renewable energy sources, only returns back 1/3 of the electricity that it took to create that Hydrogen, it's better to store that energy and use it directly. The only place where Hydrogen does make sense is in areas where battery energy density isn't sufficient. Which is long haul aircraft and long haul shipping. Yes, you expended more electricity if from Green Hydrogen, but if it's not from coal, and if it's produced when from renewables when we have excess energy, it's a winner. It's also still a lower CO2 footprint than petroleum based if we had produced the Hydrogen via steam reformation, though that's an area we should avoid as it's not significantly lower CO2 footprint.
So sorry this comes out of the uk. Our co2 from energy production has dropped from 500g/kWh to 180gkwh proving bens point that co2 reduces. Additionally at an efficient of 5km/kWh, we are seeing the co2 output at the power station drop to 36g/km. Compared to 120g/km it shows the reduction. But a man standing in front of a load of classics which makes no sense because they will not be banned telling us about why ev's don't work seems like he has ulterior motivation
@@SteveLomas-k6k if an EV costs 2p a mile to run and a petrol costs 14p. It's just cheaper. Electricity bill goes up, petrol or diesel bill goes down by a lot more.
Well done Vid, one year soon we will conquer fusion, and then EV's and having a robust grid will be incredible. For now it’s so nice to be able to breathe. Vehicle life for EVs is generally looking to be about 3 times ICE vehicles.
Plus the PM 2.5 emmisions are lower for EV, because of the large amount of pm2.5 S from combustion. Some is from tires & brakes, but far more from exhaust.
Burning natural gas in a natural gas car is more efficient than making H2 from natural gas and transporting H2 to a fuel station to fuel an H2 car. The H2 car system uses about 5 times more energy than just running a natural gas car.
The switch to EV should have a big upstream effect on finding more efficient means of electrical generation including, but not limited to, solar, wind and ocean currents.
What I find interesting is how little people cared about cobalt mining prior to BEVs. It's been used in batteries and other industrial processes for years prior. In fact, Elon specifically wanted to target using batteries that he could get easily. Laptop batteries were the obvious choice because there was a well-established supply chain, which included the need for cobalt. This was in 2010.
The hydrogen argument is a popular one and as you say the fossil fuels companies want to keep selling you something. In the UK, there look to be less than 20 hydrogen refueling stations. The same people who say there isn't enough EV charging infrastructure are proponents of hydrogen in my experience 😂
18:22 - Damian at @TheCarGuys says, "...the universe's most abundant, free, green energy source: hydrogen." Firstly, while hydrogen is, in fact, the universe's most abundant element, it's far from free, as he states. Here on Earth, elemental hydrogen is exceedingly rare. In fact, there's currently only a single natural hydrogen well (and a small one, at that) in Mali in operation. And, while there are an estimated 5 trillion tons of natural hydrogen reserves in about a dozen countries in the world, the resources are likely too widely dispersed for economical recovery. With natural hydrogen aside, 95% of hydrogen is produced via steam reforming methane. This is an energy negative process that also emits large amounts of GHGs. The combined negative effects of steam methane reforming result in a situation where we'd be better off just burning the methane in the first place. So-called "blue" hydrogen is Big Oil's attempt at greenwashing hydrogen production using carbon capture and sequestration. The sad truth is that CCS hasn't been deployed beyond pilot projects. What's more, the CO2 that is recovered is used in a "enhanced recovery" techniques. Essentially, the stuff is pumped into underperforming oil and gas wells in order to increase production. Real green, right? That leaves "green" hydrogen. That is, hydrogen from electrolysis powered by renewables. The problem is that electrolysis first requires desalination and/or purification of water. As we're all too well aware, access to fresh water is becoming ever more problematic. Both processes also require large amounts of energy. Then there's the electrolysis bit which is, in and of itself, hugely energy intensive. Using renewables to produce "green" hydrogen would require the equivalent of the total amount of energy generated by solar and wind in 2019...worldwide! That's a huge opportunity cost that would impact our ability to decarbonize the electricity generation sector; a cost we cannot afford. Lastly, harnessing hydrogen has all kinds of issues, from materials embrittlement to fuel cell longevity, hydrogen fuel cells for electricity generation in EVs, etc., is massively inefficient (well-to-wheel) in comparison to alternatives. And don't even get me started on hydrogen combustion. Plainly put, that's simple the worst idea ever.
I do wish the "EV vs ICE" game didn't become so political. Years ago it was fun comparing the two differences, now people dive into their camps trenches and just hurl projectiles at the other. The middle ground of EV's and ICE eroded it seems, similar to politics in America I suppose.
FYI. The biggest user of Cobalt is the production of fuel for ICE engines, diesel and Jet fuel production. Check out the stats. The oil industry does not want the public to know this stat. I do not remember the percentage of what the OIL industry uses on the overall production but If my memory serves me correctly they use more than 65% ( possibly up to 80%) of the world production of Cobalt.
I would like to add winter turbines are also highly recyclable. Unfortunately, there are many places in the US that do not have the infrastructure to recycle them.
Great channel! On the subject of Cobalt. I can’t find my source at the moment but Cobalt is used in the refining of Oil into Petrol and Diesel! And has been for at least the past 50 years, and no sign of them moving away from using it.
The problem is not people hating EVs. The biggest issue is trying to impose a solution to people whether they like or not or ignoring whether this solution is suitable to their needs. It’s the restriction of choice that triggers the hate. If you like an EV, you can go and buy one. But if you want an ICE because in more suitable to your needs you are heavily penalised for that. In the UK, if you remove political interference from the car market, today majority of people would buy an ICE car. Yet the government , will not respect this democratic majority.
Thank you Ben for debunking these brought and paid for EV haters , they keep spewing out lies non stop , keep up the good work cheers from Australia 🇦🇺
Good job. I have these discussions with many a person. They usually don’t know many facts. One item that would have been nice to add would have been how many batteries are recycled as well as the 90% of the materials returned after recycling. I think that’s the big problem now is getting old batteries to get recycled. Thanks for the good spot check on bad information.
15:47 as I understand the issue, the biggest problem with EV battery recycling is that there aren't enough worn out EV batteries because 1) they are degrading too slowly in EVs 2) the are being repurposed by people as static battery storage for homes and such, even after they've degraded too much to be used for EVs.
That's correct. The CEO of the german Voltfang GmbH, a company specializing in second life applications for car batteries, recently said in an interview with the german public broadcasting station WDR1: Most of the decommissioned electric car batteries are still ideal for storing electricity. "They arrive with a usable capacity of over 85 to 95 percent, so they're practically as good as new."
@@bgdexter "They arrive with a usable capacity of over 85 to 95 percent, so they're practically as good as new." Why, then, are they throwing perfectly good batteries (new)? Do they replace them for fun?
The chart you showed was the percent for 'Transportation Only' greenhouse gases. The chart from the other article you showed was the percent of Transportation gases versus ALL greenhouse gases created from manufacturing, cement production, aluminum production, etc.
Great video as always Ben. Just a point regarding H2 in the UK. It’s failed; there were 11 H2 refuelling stations in the UK as of Sept 2023, Shell closed 3 stations in recent years, siting supply complications a falling demand. It seems to be overlooked that H2 being a very light gas with widely spaced atoms makes containment extremely difficult and it always finds a way to escape. If you use a green energy source to produce Green Hydrogen you may as well put that energy directly into a battery and save time and cost on producing H2.
Great work! I hope my family could get an education from one of your videos sometime soon. We need more discussions like this. I’ve believed for a long time that electrifying our vehicle fleet and building out renewable energy was key to helping mitigate climate change! We need more people like Ben dispelling the myths cause SO many people believe them. Keep it up! 👍🏼
Thanks for those who pointed out my quoting of the stat about EV fires was incomplete. The entire quote should have included the denominator for how many EV fires there were versus how many were on the road. From the same article it does that math to show that "there's a 1 in 38,000 chance of fire" for EVs and Hybrids which means "gas- and diesel-powered passenger vehicles are 29 times more likely to catch fire than EVs and hybrids." - HOWEVER - Age of the vehicle is the most important factor. And since EVs are so new (relatively) we really don't have solid enough data yet. However, the data we do have is looking good for EVs. More to come...
12:54 your fire data analysis is worthless. how many total vehicles are used. if there are 10 EVs in sweden and 5 of the catch fire, that's 50% if there are 1,000,000 EVs and 5 catch fire, that's... a lot less. the data presented does not address totals fires per type (EV/ICE) as a percentage of total vehicles per type. also there is no data regarding how dangerous ICE/EV fires are or how hard they are to put out.
Except when you factor in the damage caused by the different types of fires or the need to store EVs in underground parking facilities moving forward or the potential that as the current crop of cheap Chinese EVs degrade in a way that increases the amount of fires. You selectively (and I believe deliberately) cherry pick the information you present. The NSW fire service have some input that you probably should research, they would definitely be considered experts in the field.
We do have data on how newer cars are not as likely to catch fire except the curve seems to have flattened out, newer cars are better but not much better than cars that are 5 years old.
@@isaac827 The only EVs I know a burnt off in higher amounts were Cevrolet Bolt EV ans EUV. GM did produce them with pouch cells from LG. Elon Musk told GM that this won't be a good idea because pouch cells have a lack in mechanical stability. Not good when you know that a car has to absorb a lot of hits from the road and vibrations.
The best batteries are already made in China. They are simply the market leader for batteries. To call them down for low quality is simply a lie. But of course you can get chep batteries who have failed in testing them and therefore didn't got a badge from the manufacturer. But as long this batteries a still have some funtionality, some resellers take the rubbish and sell them for much less. So never buy that cheap, because you will most likely be the victim of such behavior. But be aware of, that not a single Chinese car manufacturer has a need of bad publicity , because of failing and burning batteries.
What is true also, is a series of burned BYDs in China. But it came out soon, that this were plugin hybrids which caught fire in there ICE compartments first...
A lot of burning "EV fires" are hybrids after a nearer look. Only GM I know for an EV which were just burning off by left alone in a parking lot or worse in the garage next to the house. Pouch cells ar not a good idea to use them in EVs, that's for sure now.
@BenSullinsOfficial Apples and oranges. Lithium fires are far more dangerous and harder to put out.
Cobalt isn't just used in batteries, it's been used in the desulphurisation process of fuel for ages. Not sure the oil companies will be ethically sourcing 100% of the cobalt they use
And the petroheads say, "but it is a catalyst and is not used up." Guess what, the cobalt inn EV battery is not used up either. It is too valuable to discard, so it is recycled at the end of the battery's life.
Isnt chemically used up. But it is mechanically abraided away.@charlescourtney4412
And the sulfur removed surpases the demand for sulfur. I know since I worked on an oil refinery. We used to have mountais of sulfur,
@@EnriqueAThieleSolivan Sailing into Vancouver Harbour there's a big bright yellow pile on the port side. Pretty sure it was Vancouver. West coast of Canada port anyway. We weren't carrying it so I'm not sure about much more than a big yellow pile of nasty.
They most certainly aren't...... As I understand it, most EV manufacturers have signed agreements to use ethically soured materials, but the oil companies have not.
I really think the people that keep saying hydrogen is the way forward believe you just put water in the car and it converts it to fuel. They have no idea how its made, transported or stored and the costs involved.
I knew a guy who made it in his garage. Ran a VW bug on hydrogen peroxide.
Hydrogen is a complete non starter for passenger cars, it fails on every level. Cost, safety, practicality, emissions, efficiency, everything.
They believe it's more convenient as it appears similar to filling up with regular fuel, however it's very different and very difficult to do consistently and at high demand. Due to it being pressure based system. Not just volumetric flow based. It's good for long haul but not the solution for the masses.
I find it funny how these FUDs are always concerned about the combustibility of EVs and then suggest we use a highly flammable, pressurized gas as fuel.
@burgers8 rather consistently. I've noticed. Anything that goes vroom vroom. I think it's the thought of lack of control. If some of these gashuffers were forced to drive a Model S Plaid for 2 weeks, adoption rates would sky rocket. Throttle control is very addictive.
The high noise pollution from ICE vehicles should also be taken into account
Yea all that uncorked open headers driving around🤣
In Germany, I think electric cars can go faster than ICE just because of that.
Jason Slaughter of "Not Just Bikes" did a good piece on this in his "Cities Aren't Loud: Cars Are Loud" video. Sadly electric car tire noise is also bad at high speeds, definitely better than ICE at low speeds (almost too quiet for safety). :(
I’d love to see good data on this
Not saying that your wrong but daily ice cars arent that loud(to me anyways) when they drive pass it mostly the air you are hearing even while driving(unless you push on the accelarator harder) you wont really hear it
I firmly believe big oil is paying a lot of these people.
If you’ve read Merchants of Doubt, probably not too far-fetched. Big Oil, like Big Tobacco before it, has a well-established track record of funding deception campaigns.
I think there's enough EV haters that anyone making an anti-EV video is making money just from clicks, but a back-hander from Big Oil wouldn't hurt.
@@eman67rp Agreed. The amount of capital that is available to discredit any competition to the gas/diesel/hydrogen pump (the behaviour to pump your fuel at big oil’s infrastructure as opposed to charging an EV battery at home is critical) is a lot higher than most people realize. You throw in the much higher maintenance ICE cost and the toxic tailpipe exhaust from ICE and it becomes quite obvious to the average buyer that if you’re into:
lower maintenance costs, better acceleration, safety, instant torque, Over the Air Updates, no dealerships, less road noise, and only 16 moving parts… they are going to pick the EV. So naturally, big oil, looking at this future reality does not like this reality very much. Hence the propaganda campaign.
You mean like the big “influencers” that hat just got nailed by investigation on being paid by Russia to side with Russia over Ukraine? Yeah it happens everywhere.
Shell is apparently converting 1000s of gasaholeline stations to charging stations. Capitalists at work.
If we are finger- pointing ..the Chicago incident was apparently orchestrated by uAvv. Aswell as hiring wannabe tree huggers to harass Giga Berlin.
These hater channels mostly all use an AI voice spurting out false info loaded with FUD
Piston Pundit
Chase car
Highway Harold
This is not about arguments/facts. This is about psychology.It's ok to not like EVs. It's not ok to fabricate arguments to support that choice.
EV advocates lie to support their argument all the time.
"Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for your country's oil companies!"
@filipbalas495 None of the arguments are fabricated. It's okay to want an EV, it's not okay to force people to buy one.
@bobsinhav Say what you want about oil companies but they employ a ton of people and give back to the community.
@@tbl268 Say what you want about EVs and renewable electricity but they employ a ton of people and give back to the community.
Scania trucks have been testing hydrogen fueled and electric trucks and have announced that they are not going to continue with hydrogen due to its cost and its low performance. The section of his video where he showed loads of wind turbine blades that he said was going into land fill was debunked as the recycling company was storing them in that field until they had enough to recycle as doing a few at a time is not cost effective.
The EU countries have decided to commit to providing hydrogen filling stations along motorways for trucks. Once the stations are there I think more vehicles will be made to use them. I think the plan is to build huge solar farms in Spain producing hydrogen then is transferred by pipeline to the rest of Europe.
Even if someone doesn't buy into climate change, they can not deny that the air quality would go up. This would decrease respiratory problems.
This alone makes the transition worth it.
@@shannon6876do you see that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record in the US, that the polar caps refuse to melt and The Maldives stubbornly stay above sea level? When one has a memory and can see historical records, it is harder to be fooled.
Before you flip out about that statement, know that I’ve been full EV for almost two years and despise stinky exhaust and the expenses that go with it. Over 100k EV miles since 2021 and much $$$$ saved.
@@brendykes1202Maybe you missed it, but the reason it's called Global Warming and not Red, White and Blue American Warming, is because it's about the decade by decade increase in global average temperatures. It's not just about one continent or country.
And scientists who study the poles are sounding ever more urgent alarms about what is happening there.
The US Department of Defense certainly thinks sea level rise is a serious issue.
@@davidmenasco5743 it’s not. The ice coverage is steady to increasing. Also, the poles and Maldives aren’t in the US, you might want to work on your geography. All the dramatic predictions since the 80s have failed to materialize. In 2020 they had to take the gloom signs down in Glacier NP because the glaciers had failed to melt. A prophet is known by their accuracy and the climate profits fail harder than the guys that have been telling us since the 1800s they know when Jesus is coming back.
Besides, a warmer planet supports much more life than a cold one. The massive climate danger is that the current ice age goes back into a glacial period. The increase in CO2 has been greening the planet and that’s a good thing. CO2 = green, that’s elementary school science.
@kalabash72 You will see that people will use silly arguments like that air pollution is just moved to where the electricity or the materials for the cars are produced or that evs emit much more particular matter from the tires.
Well done Ben, just so sick of the anti EV lies. People just keep repeating them straight off the internet, no sources, no balance, no debate, no thought, it’s pathetic.
The right wing, especially in America, just ruined itself for the sake of the oil companies.
The thing about hydrogen is that pretty much all the hydrogen on Earth is tied up in things like water and hydrocarbons. So in order to produce pure hydrogen, you have to knock those molecules apart, and that takes energy (and in the case of hydrocarbons, you end up producing CO2). Quite a lot of energy, actually. Then you have to transport and store it at extremely low temperatures, which comes with its own set of problems. And it's the smallest atom in the universe, so stopping it from leaking out also isn't problem free. So instead of spending all that energy - electricity, usually - on producing hydrogen so that you can use that hydrogen in a car to generate electricity, why not just send the electricity straight into EVs? You know, skip the middle man. Don't cross the stream in order to fetch water.
You're ignoring geological hydrogen which could be tapped like oil. Yes like anything that comes with issues too but it's not out of reach. It's estimated the U. S. Has large geo reserves of hydrogen. So the story isn't over yet. Will displace BEV or ICE? I don't think so but it still could have use cases. Some mega cities might make use of such an economy it just depends on a lot of factors. The next billionaires could be wildcatters risking drilling for hydrogen in the U.S.
@@Windstorm7x7-wl8ko Most of the world's hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. Most of the world's natural hydrogen reserves probably aren't financially viable to extract.
@@Windstorm7x7-wl8ko When the world's hydrogen producers prefer to spend huge amounts of energy on knocking either water or hydrocarbons apart, instead of extracting geological hydrogen, there are probably very good reasons for that. I.e., the former is way more economical than the latter. That pretty much tells me all I need to know.
@@Windstorm7x7-wl8ko - geologic hydrogen isn't a free ride and there are still many open questions remaining to be address. It some areas it requires similar approach as fracking, and often requires multiple well heads and expensive drill operations as geologic hydrogen tends to form in pockets on top of other gases or water deposits. There are questions about the extraction process given the reactivity of hydrogen and whether this will gum up extraction by reacting with surrounding rocks and minerals; one reason geologic hydrogen pockeis form is it reacts minerals forming a seal that prevents it escaping. Lastly geologic hydrogen co-exists with other gasses, particularly methane hence there are question about how these waste gasses are prevented from leaking (particularly methane due to being a powerful greenhouse gas).
people keep talking about how the electricity used in EVs are not made in a clean way. but every gas station I know of use the same electricity in addition to the gas they sell. the process of making the gas also use the same electricity.
In Eugene Oregon we have very clean energy production, 80% of it is hydro-electric.
@anthonybonair8842 Battery Chemistry technology will eliminate the mining issue.
And cobalt is used in oil refining. That cobalt is not recovered or recycled.
TRUE!
The electricity not being clean isn't even a valid argument against EVs. No one ever said EVs alone fix all carbon emission problems. They are part of the solution, not all of it. Whether they come first, in the middle, or last, If you want to reduce carbon emissions to sustainable levels, EVs are necessarily a part of the solution.
It wasn't until EV's gained prominence that I realized so many conservatives were concerned about the human rights abuses of African children.😂
@@patrick7228 actually it was left-wingers that are more concerned about raw material extraction including those from the global south rarely did I see conservatives say anything about it because conservatives tend to own the mining companies who extract those resources to make EVs they're getting their money regardless and in fact it's a boom for them because commodity prices for EVs have gone up significantly since then
@@enhancedutility266 I think the comment was being sarcastic. It took the need to create compassion to use to condemn making things better for the right wing to fake having compassion for the poor.
.
Historically that same population had no issues with mining the hell out of a landscape....
@patrick7228 I like how they complain about Teslas Cobalt use enslaving children while on their phones, laptops & tablets all known to use Congo Cobalt.
When Tesla actually acknowledged this issue, before it was an issue and voluntarily refused Congo Cobalt in their Glencor contract.
@@roguemedic I can probably see or conservatives would say about it due to the opposition of electric cars but over the years it's been the left side that made more of a stink about it especially since the mining companies like glencore had a bad reputation with the environmental and labor practices again I just don't see conservatives being upset about it that much The only thing I could find that they would be is the mandates and using taxpayer funds to fun ev companies and green energy technology companies
As a Brit I'm feeling somewhat embarrassed by this guys information. For the record:
The UK's last coal fired power station is due to close at the beginning of October. Yes, that's next month as I type. (source: UK Government)
Over the last year 27.9% of our electricity was generated from fossil fuel. Gas being by far the largest part of that.
38.9% from renewables. Wind being the largest part, (we don't see the sun that often 😉).
21.7% from "other" sources. Most of that is nuclear. (Source: National grid: Live)
Child labor in Congo mining for cobalt is because of capitalism, not ecology or the transition. Chocolate production has the same problem: child slaves. Do you eat chocolate?
Hmmm congo is a capitalist government? Try socialists
Same with coffee. The coffee industry has a history of using underpaid and even forced labor abroad to cultivate and harvest its products.
@@laurentallenguerard Fashion industry too.
@@laurentallenguerard sugar industry.
@laurentallenguerard sea food too. There a vid on yt of a woman giving birth standing while shuking clams.
what the heck are Toyota and BMW doing by pursuing Hydrogen cars! it really is baffling to me. 🤯
Desperation, they can’t match Chinese EVs
Toyota are embracing the right fuel for the job, e.g. electric for inner city, hydrogen for long haul. At least in their eyes this is the best way forward.
BMW to my knowledge are not doing any Hydrogen development?
@@benjimc1
Hydrogen problems
- Hydrogen infrastructure make EV infrastructure look wonderful.
- Splitting hydrogen from water takes x4 the amount of energy currently used.
- Transporting the hydrogen from where it's created to where it's needed it tremendously difficult.
- It's damned expensive, far more so than EVs.
EVs may have their challenges, but it's got nothing on Hydrogen's issues.
@@Acemeistre I agree
All these problems are being researched. Hydrogen can be drilled for like oil or natural gas. Reservoirs have already been found . research is also underway to store hydrogen in a solid, which would make it easier and safer to transport. It does have a potential smaller footprint than BEV but not without its potential pluses.
Lovin the debunkin Ben!
So many crackpot EV haters making yt videos now as they're getting clicks. They'll fade back into the shadows soon enough. I'm glad you are using your platform to set them straight.
EV can be charged by solar...wind generators...etc.
Gasoline vehicles must use gasoline.
I want a EV...😊
One day of solar production from the array on my roof runs my Mach-E for a week of around town driving.
@@JusticeAlways I truly can't see why there are so many haters. Gasaholeline has leashed us into a monopolized society for as long as anyone can remember. Electricity can be made many ways. Even DIY. Several potential highly efficient methods in the works. Only electricity has the potential to free the people of this 100yr leash. I just don't get the haters .
@@charlescourtney4412 True. Most people have no idea how little energy is used recharging an EV.
@@EnriqueAThieleSolivan A weeks worth of power to a relatively energy efficient house to charge an EV once, I would say that is significant.
@@isaac827Aye, but then, if you take your very efficient small 70BHP diesel hatchback with a 40 litre tank to the services, you pump 6 weeks worth of energy for said house.
There is no bigger conflict mineral than oil.
@@shannon6876But if you squeeze it hard enough, you get - mineral oil.
@@davidmenasco5743I tried this… it worked!
@@davidmenasco5743: That was a bad pun, even by my standards. And I don’t have high standards(on humor).
Fun fact: a Tesla Model 3 powered by electricity generated 100% from the dirtiest coal power plant on the planet would have roughly the same driving emissions as a Toyota Prius, and by extension generally still better emissions vs every other ICE car that exists
fun fact: we don't build another powerplant for BEV. BEV just gets electrical energies from pre-existed electric power grid. Most of electricities from powerplant in nowadays are wasted because powerplants cannot turn off and must keep running during night time. BEV saves those wasted electricities in it's battery so driving BEV means saving electricities that are supposed to be wasted.
@@yumyumlol-o7r I don't really understand what you are trying to say or what your point is, but that's not how electricity works at all... power plants must always be balanced for their generation against the current usage. They can't run and have the electricity go nowhere.
@@DigitalSteelWhat he 8s saying is that plugging your car in at night helps to stabilize the utility grid. As a result you also get cheaper electricity during off peak hours like at midnight 🌙.
@@jacksonbangs6603 Yes, charging or any other form of electrical use during off peak hours instead of peak hours can indeed help reduce strain on the grid, assuming you live in a place with a strained grid. You can typically tell because you will be offered 'off peak' pricing. This is not the case everywhere however.
Grid operators love EVs, for this very reason. The overnight charging helps them out tremendously, and it does help stabilize the grid in many places.
Agreed we really need to start pushing the healthcare savings offsetting the upfront adoption costs of EVs
@johnlabernik4599 Don't forget to also offset costs of subsidizing big oil Trillions every Yr. Total up big auto bail- outs before criticizing EV subsidies going to the little guy buying his car.
Here's the deal. With ICE, the pollution is fairly static. With an EV, solutions for how energy are produced are being put in to place. At least it can be dealt with. Even if some of what was said about pollution and EVs are true today, they won't be in the near future.
One thing is that none of the studies never mention the energy that it takes to get oil out ground and get the gasoline into your tank. Also, the human rights abuses of oil producing countries.
The best information I've found on Well-to-tank emissions is around 610g/CO2/litre. So an average car with a 50ltr tank has 30kg of "embodied" emissions already in it before it moves away from the pump.
@steve_787 Right, but I rarely see this in any of the studies in comparison between ICE EVs. One number that is understood is that a 4 stroke engine issue is about 20 percent efficient. So, an ICE car uses about 7kw-hrs per gallon gas burned. Does it take more than 7kw-hr of energy to go from oil in the ground to gasoline in your tank. .This information seems very guarded and hard to find.
@@rcircle2008 yeah, as you say it's not easy to find out and I never know why as an EV driver I have to include all the fuel and battery manufacturing to justify any environmental benefit but never have to take into account the fuel for an ICE 🤷♂ Had a guy once claiming that his diesel wasn't as bad as quoted by the manufacturer as there is 10% bio diesel in the fuel which is carbon natural. Yet in the same conversation then cited that electricity from biomass couldn't be counted a carbon neutral to power an EV, then had factor in all the transmission losses and then add in the 2 or 3 trees he had in his garden made his BMW cleaner to drive than any EV. Honestly couldn't make it up.
I did watch a video on YT about the electricity used to make/refine fuel based on the claims from Musk a few years back that we already have enough electricity to power EV's if we just stopped refining fuel. Can't remember the title (will try to find it again) but he did a good breakdown of it based on the information he could find. It did work out that Musk wasn't right and it was more like half the energy would be freed up. But, I'd have to find it again to quote exact figures from it.
@@rcircle2008 One interesting one I did find was on NMC battery manufacturing for a battery made in China. It calculated that per 1kWh of battery storage it took 105kg/CO2 to make including extraction etc. and seems a good rule of thumb on what should be just about the worst case for battery manufacture.
@@steve_787 Why would it be the worst case. It is probably the best. Considering the companies buy their batteries from China..
For UK data on electricity generation it's well worth searching for "Grid Kate Morley", she takes live and historical data from the GB National Grid and displays it in a very readable format. It currently shows that in the last 12 months fossil fuels have made up just 27.9% of electricity generation with wind at 32.4%, and an overall average of 124g/kWhr of CO2.
The anti-EV fudders are simply afraid of change.
@@garysmith5025 I think a lot just like noisy, smelly & inefficient vehicles - some kind of macho rubbish 😞
@@DaveABerry Very true, that is a factor for many. Although when our business moved to EVs a few years ago there were two guys, same age as me (mid-50s) who were really upset about it and said they would leave. A tactful conversation revealed they were both just worried about arriving at a charger and not knowing how to use it, as an older man I suppose we expect to just know how stuff works; so also macho rubbish. The problem was solve by a few hours driving around a few chargers, both guys changed their own cars for EVs within a year.
@@garysmith5025 you are “simply afraid of change” said the Bolsheviks to the people of Russia in 1917. No, we are not afraid of your go-carts, we are afraid of communists forcibly taking our trillions of dollars to wrestle away the control of the world economy again. EVs and gas cars tried to compete 100 years ago, EVs lost. Still can’t compete without huge subsidies.
The sad thing about this video is that although it is well researched and fair in the way it discusses this subject people who watch that anti EV clown will tend to ignore you and believe what suits them.
How many people with negative comments about EV’s have had first hand experience with them?
I’ve owned an EV for a couple of months now and the low running cost is not the main reason I would never go back. It is superior in every way except for longer distance trips. I can put up with that because of all the other benefits.
With the T M3P …..no car dealers, service centres or petrol stations , and a car that delivers the performance and handling of a pedigree car. After a night time charge it’s ready to go again.
I’ve subscribed because of the rational, non emotive and factual way you have structured this video Keep up the good work but I’m afraid people only believe what they want to.
The cobalt issue is such a weird argument when you consider the human rights abuses that have gone into fossil fuel extraction and ecological destruction.
I don’t care about the global warming scenario but I do care about my city pollution. When we were locked up it was nice to see blue skies and that is what EVs would give us blue skies. 14:46 also windmill blades are getting recycled.
Don't agree on your global warming stands, but absolutely agree on caring about city pollution.
I think you do care about global climate warming, if you care to understand and see the consequences. Just look at Super Typhoon Yagi in Phillipines, Hainan China, Vietnam etc. The aftermath, the deaths etc. YAGI is going to be common, if you care to understand the science behind it.
Oh, you cannot escape from the consequences of climate warming, we’re all on planet Earth, right?
It’s a shame anti-ev people don’t even give a thought to air pollution reducing with more EVs on the road. It would help them and their kids.
Nicely done! I remember starting to watch that video and just turning it off...
One thing I will caution you about, though, is big numbers. According to the US EPA, "Transportation" accounts for 28% of GHG. Within "Transportation", Light-Duty vehicles account for 57% of GHG. So, obviously, you would like us to concentrate on that number because 57% is a bigger number than 28%. And if we do some math, 57% of 28 is 16. So 16% of GHG emissions come from Light-Duty vehicles. Of course, that's an even smaller number so you'd like us to ignore that.
I don't disagree with you, but if the argument is "Cars amount to a small fraction of total GHG emissions," saying "Don't look at those accurate numbers, look at these accurate numbers which are bigger." becomes more of an exercise in "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Probably the strongest argument for EVs at the moment is the elimination of tail pipe emissions and the positive effect it will have on health - especially in built up areas. Ben thanks for highlighting this point in your debunk.
I'd say the strongest argument for EVs is that, while the climate crisis is becoming increasingly urgent, the transition away from fossil fuels is going much too slowly.
Transitioning the vehicle fleet from combustion to electric is one of about 12 major steps needed to complete the energy transition. But it's one of only two that is on track to meet the timeline target.
Without the EV transition, a whole lot of people will be seriously screwed. By a whole lot, I mean about 99.5% of the world's population as of about 2050.
@@davidmenasco5743 climate change may be the most pressing reason the go EV. But unfortunately it’s not the most pressing reason in many people’s eyes. Show them the excess deaths caused by tail pipe emissions or better an asthmatic child struggling to breath then the urgency to get to zero tailpipe emissions is evident.
It’s more a matter of how you convince people to go EV than the need. Both arguments are equally strong.
@@DrDave_63395 I agree that the public health implications are reason enough for the transition to BEV.
I think liberating the governments of the world from the oil companies' effective veto power over policy and legislation is also reason enough.
It is sad that people have so much difficulty seeing past the next five years. On the other hand, it's really only a relative handful who are aware that vehicle exhaust is causing children and teens in urban areas to die of asthma.
All of this info is effectively squashed by the heavy flow of petrodollars.
If you really want to address health then make it safe and effective to do local shopping on e-bikes
@@canwelook This certainly should be done. But it would literally involve rebuilding every town and city and suburb in the country. It would involve moving half of the buildings in the United States.
Compared to this daunting task, converting the vehicle fleet to full electric is mere child's play - simplicity itself.
Your charts, I believe, show the emissions from making the cars, tailpipe emissions for gas cars, and the electricity production emissions for charging EVs. BUT they completely omit the emissions from producing gasoline, am I right? Shouldn't that be counted if we're counting the emissions from producing the electricity? That would make the gas car many times worse than the EV, as there are more emissions from making the gas than burning the gas.
If you find that please email me
@@BenSullinsOfficial ok, I don't have a ton of time but I'll see what I can find!
@@BenSullinsOfficial There is an article at Innovationorigins about this and there are some from Netherlands. The rough calculation is 30% additional CO2 for production of gasoline and 24% for production of diesel. I emailed you the link to the article and the sources are at the bottom.
@@st0il @bensullinsofficial The actual figures used in several studies (like the one from the Bundeswehrhochschule München) cites that for every 6 litres of diesel fuel the oil company has spent about 42 kWh of additional energy until the stuff was in your tank...
He is saying one thing, you are debating another. He is right about cars not making a real difference regarding the CO2 emissions when you consider that are only responsible for around 10% of emissions. And when he says covered in acid is refreshing to al that toxic gas released uhen a ev is boring and the toxic water that is infiltrating the soil. Debunk John Cadogan if you are so sure on your facts.
Whups!
He was taking about % of CO2 that is transportation while your donut chart was just the breakdown of transportation CO2 by transport method. In other places I’ve seen transportation listed as something like 20-30% of CO2. Unfortunately you wound up doing apples & oranges.
It’s always interesting that people will bring up the terrible impact mining materials for batteries causes but will ignore the towns that have been evacuated and will be unlivable for 100’s of years because the coal mine caught fire. Or the huge impact fracking has. Giant oil spills covering beaches. Or even the fact that the oil & gas industry expect to lose a certain percentage of the natural gas from their pipelines that leak. While mining for batteries does have an impact so does oil and coal. You can’t recycle oil, gas, or coal once they’re burned.
Ben - keep up the great work of debunking these fools. Reliable data will convince me over feelings, biases, and hunches every time!
the hydrogen pushers want you to think it would come from electricity and water, but they really will just reform methane. Electrolysis is one of the oldest chemical technologies and while advances have been made, it is still quite inefficient compared to stuffing those electrons directly into batteries. Once you have hydrogen it is not efficient to convert that into work either. It just can’t compete for most forms of transport. Hydrogen might have a place in long haul flight and shipping.
Uk has more renewable energy now than non. So we are vastly better than usa.
In fact coal has finished in uk
"Renewable energy" is nonsense. There's no such thing.
I think you’re reading the donut chart wrong. It looks like it’s only talking about greenhouse gasses from vehicles rather than a percentage of total greenhouse gases from other sources.
Intentionally wrong
Yes seen his nonsense and provided a suitable comment on the video at the time. Sadly alot of people believe his lies.
Another point to add: the manufacturing process for hydrocarbons particularly gasoline is very dangerous and a health hazard also. Gasoline additives to make vehicles cleaner burning are particularly harmful. Lookup the deaths and injury’s at the BP refinery explosion in Texas City and the Phillips explosion in Pasadena Texas. Also look at history of fires in refineries across the country. Think about health issues of benzene and hydroflouric acid to mention only a few. Do you know only brass hammers can be used in refineries because they can cause a spark..
* Hydrogen is corrosive to steel. Sure you can create special metals overall, but the cost is m7ch higher and small things like fittings are still steel.
* Hydrogen has issues being transported, so you need to manufacture it near the fill-up station. Many cities don't want this.
* Not many fill-up stations left worldwide, especially in the EU. Whole countries like Denmark have closed all the stations (I think Germany too)
Thank you Ben
Credible sources means other UA-cam videos who pick and choose what backs their narrative. It’s a circlejerk of ignorance.
Extremely well done. You nailed almost everything except to perhaps mention that most Chinese manufacturers use LFP batteries which do not use any nickel, and that the oil companies use significant amounts of cobalt in the manufacture of gasoline. Once again, I couldn’t have said it better than you did!
No electric cars because the thing is nobody's pushing for these electric cars they are few but the majority of us Plus the productivity of Eli muscle cars there's about a 1000 I'm sitting on the parking lot and nobody wants them we don't even want it boy bye
8:41
Non-export opinion, after looking at the charts so far:
Transport is 20% of Total emmissions. Passenger cars is 60% of Transport. Passenger car emission is therefore 12% of total greenhouse emissions.
Due not that some of the industrial emissions are there in support of fossil fuels for transport, so there are additional saving there.
Just to share an example. Here in Portugal we got 61% of our energy from renewable sources in 2022.
Yes we are 10 million inhabitants and not 300 milion but it's proof it can be done and with a little investment we will get 100% renewable in a few more years.
Although, unfortunately, we have no nuclear...
The thing the anti EVers don’t get is that the EV technology keeps improving and the arguments they use against EV adoption will be obsolete in 5 years. The main one is slow charging times. Once an EV can be charged say 200 miles in ten minutes, it will be difficult to justify buying an ICE car. And these charge times will soon be here. The other argument is cost of EV’s vrs ICE cars. Like all other electronics, prices will come down. What if EV’s become cheaper to produce than ICE cars? There is a reason the US government put a 100% tariff on Chinese EV’s. Because they are cheaper NOW than our domestically produced ICE cars!
Most car journeys are not close to 200 miles without a stop, but people think they need that range for the occasional journey where a stop for more than 5 minutes somehow becomes a massive inconvenience for them.
I agree that faster charging and longer range (bigger battery capacity) eliminate these "non" issues, and we're already getting there with many higher end EVs.
@@ziploc2000 We have two EV’s and no ICE cars. Just did a 900 mile round trip in our ID.4. No problem. With one 1/2 hour charge we went 380 miles with enough range to reach a charger near our destination. Most ICE drivers stop for at least 15 minutes at the gas station while everyone goes to the bathroom and buys snacks. Another 15 minutes is no big deal. Plus you should stretch your legs after a few hours of driving.
The problem is people don't want to be forced to buy an EV.
@@tbl268EVs lost all consumer confidence.Which you can never get back, EVs are a loss due to all their complications no sense of going into them all as they are just not worth the trouble. All of the arguments for and against are pointless as these cares are dangerous and unstable. No amount of trying to fix the situation will change the now lost public perception.
Fast charging cars with long range are already here. Apart from all the misinformation, the guy is also way behind the curve.
A lot of oil is also produced in Africa. So that means petrol cars are also a big using conflict minerals ?
And let’s not forget that the war in Iraq was literally a cover for Bush oil to go in and take middle-eastern oil by force.
Great video Ben! I will use it as a talking point when I encounter EV haters. One big point that I always come back to is that BEVs are steadily improving. Meaning that all of the points that detractors are making against EVs are becoming less of an issue, such as mining, refining, battery chemistry and production, renewable energy generation and storage, EV efficiency, and battery recycling, which are all getting better over time. And are improving relatively quickly. Whereas the only recent improvements for gas vehicles have been made by adding electric motors to improve efficiency and reduce smog output. Most likely, by 2035 the majority of these EV issues will no longer exist. But only if EV haters don't bring about more delays fighting positive change, and promoting EV fear and doubt. Backsliding to gas-only solutions. Which have brought us so many of the ecological and health problems that we have today.
The big lie about EVs is that people buy them to save the earth. People buy them because they're insanely fast and fuel is cheap. It's that simple.
No, lots of us buy them for environmental reasons as well
Tesla began with an extremely enviable and diverse customer base. The treehuggers wanted them to save the planet. The performance junkies wanted them to dominate 0-60 and the 1/4 mile. It's wild that one company could appeal and capture both groups.
That's exactly why I got mine. I don't give a Donald Duck about the environment or hugging trees. I just wanted a car that was way cheaper to run than what I already had.
I worked in solar. Saved a few 100 yr old oak trees from being clear cut. Not all of them. A lot of greedy men in that industry. Wall Street wolfs.
Ref. Cobolt - is used in the refining of fossil fuels to remove sulpher...
Another thing is that widespread use of EVs would help decarbonize the grid. If all EVs had vehicle-to-grid capability, and were plugged in whenever parked, they would be an incredible resource for peak-shaving and stability; removing the need for inefficient gas peaker plants and spinning reserve. All it would need is a regular outlet at each parking space (1.6kW * tens of millions of parked cars = many power stations)
That doesn't make sense, then your car would be dead in the morning?
@@tbl268 No. The grid would drain your battery ~5% during peak hours, then recharge it again once the demand reduces. Very much like how Virtual Power Plant schemes work with house batteries. You could opt-out if that inconveniences you, but there would be a financial incentive to stay connected and contribute to the grid.
@markmuir7338 That doesn't leave enough time for transformers to cool. Huge upgrades need to be done before that's even close to being viable.
@@tbl268The grid operator would be in control of when and which vehicles charge. So they can coordinate to avoid overheating the transformers. Once enough EVs are in each neighborhood, peak loads will be mostly handled by EVs in the same neighborhood or close by. This reduces strain on the distribution network and substation infrastructure vs what we have today. It’s all doable - I’m an engineer and have worked in this field.
@markmuir7338 Yeah works on paper not in real world applications.
As an electric car driver and an average citizen motivated to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, your description of the chart about transportation emissions seemed misleading. It sounded like you were saying 71% of total greenhouse gas emissions are from road transportation. This is actually 71% of just transportation emissions, whereas total transportation emissions are about 28% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US and 20-30% of all emissions globally per the EPA in 2022 and UN in 2021, respectively. No desire to be a know it all, but when we’re emphasizing the importance of facts and data, it’s important that we’re precise. Thanks for your awesome videos.
15:30 - Anyone that claims there going to a "Graveyard" or "Landfill" frankly has no idea what the real value of the battery is let alone the battery that is powering there devices to have this opinion. Not a single recycler I know would let a lithium cell go into the "garbage" and not fetch it out because there is money to be made in recycling by the ton.
Secondly the recycling rate I got from redwoods materials tour I did in the last year was near 95% now on there end. Its frankly the future the battery business.
These hit pieces get old anymore.
We will see dead EV batteries laying around uncollected in exactly the same way we currently trip over all the dead aluminum ICE engine blocks piling up beside the road after they break down...
China has huge graveyards full of EVs
Air pollution is my biggest argument for EVs with my rural neighbors. Fighting global warming doesn't get you anywhere with them. When I point out that every diesel mechanic I know has gotten cancer before the age of 60 then they pay attention.
I just show them my Electricity Bill. A simple appeal to the wallet.
Good job Ben. Thank you for your efforts in dispelling these myths.
Cobalt is used to make unleaded gasoline. That seems pretty important here.
Cobalt is used in vast quantities to remove sulphur as part of the oil refining process, in manufacture of stainless steel, tools and several other items. It has been happening for decades and is likely to continue doing so. This is something often ignored or not understood by naysayers such as this gentleman bashing EVs in favour of ICE vehicles.
The problem with your argument is scale.
Since 2021 EVs have been the largest consumer of cobalt and in 2022 constituted 40% of use. Portable electronic device batteries accounted for another 30%. Catalyst use for ALL industries was 4%.
Statista Research Department, Nov 16, 2023.
@waynerussell6401 Cobalt is fast becoming less and less important for EV battery packs as many manufacturers seek to do away with it altogether, opting for a whole range of different chemistries. It's important to note that there's more cobalt in many of our handheld devices on the cell level than there is in an EV cell. People have been using vast quantities of cobalt for decades with nary a peep of disquiet, yet all of a sudden, cobalt is bad? Not all cobalt comes from the DRC, & what does originate there, is mostly from formally organised mines with artisanal mining only representing a small fraction and of the total overall. This being said, I don't want to try to be dismissive of the somewhat poor environmental records of the DRC mining sector, nor the involvement of child labour, though I would like to point out that child labour involvement has substantially reduced, representing only about 4% of the labour force according to what an Amnesty International representative told Robert Llewellyn (Fully Charged Show) at a conference some years ago. Also, not all child labour is forced labour. In poor countries, sadly, it often comes down to the realities of having to eat, adults not necessarily being capable of working for various reasons, and whole families needing a breadwinner just to survive. Easy for those of us privileged enough to live in the rich world to be outright critical of child labour without considering the issue in the round. Obviously, it would be far better if none of this were true.
I wish that everyone who intentionally misleads the public like this could be held accountable. I have no respect for people who pass themselves off as someone with credibility who KNOW they are deceiving as many people as they can.
Imagine being against free speech
Thank you for this rebuttal. And now I know from which specific source my pal got his anti ev "facts" from.
I've been living in Shanghai for 20 years. The air quality has changed dramatically since 2010 where it was probably the worst in the period I'm in China. During 2010 the air pollution in Shanghai would get so bad some days you can hardly see the next building! The air would be yellow in color! PM2.5 levels woudl be over 500! However, today we get many clear air days! And PM2.5 levels would be way below 50, mostly around 25. We actually get a lot of sunny blue sky days too which was very very rare 10 - 15 years ago! This is my own observation living in China which goes to show the government is doing something right in cleaning up pollution!
Thanks for sharing!
7:12 - Not sure on the source of the slide but if this is the UK then the power industry bit doesn't make a lot of sense. From 2010 to 2019 the CO2 per kWh dropped from 481g to 245g. From 2012 to 2019 the annual output also dropped from 318TWh per year to 262TWh. Me thinks he might have just found a slide to help his point from a global stat....
Thanks Ben for a great fact based dismantling of those myths
Thanks for reviewing my video, Ben. I hoped it would be more open-minded, and I don't really appreciate how you use selective editing of clips without the context or the resolution, because it might have deflated some of your arguments. But thanks for taking the time to watch.
I'd love to see any data you find proving your claims or disproving mine. Email me if so! fud@bensullins.com
You don't appreciate truth, Ben provides actual sources and you sir, DO NOT.
@johnlodge8546 if you actually watch the video you will understand what carguys is talking about.
@@johnlodge8546 In the "Special Thanks" section of the description you will find my sources, John. And the charts in the video still have the labels on them.
@@BenSullinsOfficial What's that got to do with you using selective clips to make yourself look better?
My sources are listed in the "Special Thanks" in the description.
Instant humanitarian, didn't care about those issues until EVs became big
Great video. As one who owns both an EV (2022 Ford Mach-e) and an ICE (1999 Lexus SC400), I'm very familiar with all the arguments. From what I've read, even if all electricity were generated by coal, which we know it isn't (I have solar.). Also, much of the natural gas is created by reclaiming landfill gasses. But we all know that the oil industry will do whatever they can to slow EV adoption in order to protect their profits. Oh, and on the argument of incentives, the US Federal government has tons of incentives to the oil industry. i do have a buddy, who is a short-haul truck driver. He is now driving electric tractors between the Port of Los Angeles and the train yards in Ontario.
Well done, Ben. Enjoyed the humor at the end too. Kudos!
The issues with Hydrogen are multi-fold - #1 Are primary method of 'extracting it' is Methane Steam Reformation - which has a higher CO2 footprint than Coal fired power plants in terms of the amount of electricity produced in the end. #2 the 'Green' way of doing it which is electrolysis, and assuming it's from 100% renewable energy sources, only returns back 1/3 of the electricity that it took to create that Hydrogen, it's better to store that energy and use it directly. The only place where Hydrogen does make sense is in areas where battery energy density isn't sufficient. Which is long haul aircraft and long haul shipping. Yes, you expended more electricity if from Green Hydrogen, but if it's not from coal, and if it's produced when from renewables when we have excess energy, it's a winner. It's also still a lower CO2 footprint than petroleum based if we had produced the Hydrogen via steam reformation, though that's an area we should avoid as it's not significantly lower CO2 footprint.
So sorry this comes out of the uk. Our co2 from energy production has dropped from 500g/kWh to 180gkwh proving bens point that co2 reduces. Additionally at an efficient of 5km/kWh, we are seeing the co2 output at the power station drop to 36g/km. Compared to 120g/km it shows the reduction. But a man standing in front of a load of classics which makes no sense because they will not be banned telling us about why ev's don't work seems like he has ulterior motivation
How are your electric bills after that?
@@SteveLomas-k6k if an EV costs 2p a mile to run and a petrol costs 14p. It's just cheaper. Electricity bill goes up, petrol or diesel bill goes down by a lot more.
Well done Vid, one year soon we will conquer fusion, and then EV's and having a robust grid will be incredible. For now it’s so nice to be able to breathe. Vehicle life for EVs is generally looking to be about 3 times ICE vehicles.
2 years to be able to reply?
That took a lot of time to find the information and combine it to arguments... 😂
Plus the PM 2.5 emmisions are lower for EV, because of the large amount of pm2.5 S from combustion. Some is from tires & brakes, but far more from exhaust.
Another abundant free green energy source... the sun
Unless you're a plant, it's not "green energy"
Ben, I'm really enjoying these debunk videos! Looong time subscriber and seen the high and lows over the years. This is great stuff!
Burning natural gas in a natural gas car is more efficient than making H2 from natural gas and transporting H2 to a fuel station to fuel an H2 car. The H2 car system uses about 5 times more energy than just running a natural gas car.
The switch to EV should have a big upstream effect on finding more efficient means of electrical generation including, but not limited to, solar, wind and ocean currents.
What I find interesting is how little people cared about cobalt mining prior to BEVs. It's been used in batteries and other industrial processes for years prior. In fact, Elon specifically wanted to target using batteries that he could get easily. Laptop batteries were the obvious choice because there was a well-established supply chain, which included the need for cobalt. This was in 2010.
The hydrogen argument is a popular one and as you say the fossil fuels companies want to keep selling you something.
In the UK, there look to be less than 20 hydrogen refueling stations.
The same people who say there isn't enough EV charging infrastructure are proponents of hydrogen in my experience 😂
18:22 - Damian at @TheCarGuys says, "...the universe's most abundant, free, green energy source: hydrogen." Firstly, while hydrogen is, in fact, the universe's most abundant element, it's far from free, as he states.
Here on Earth, elemental hydrogen is exceedingly rare. In fact, there's currently only a single natural hydrogen well (and a small one, at that) in Mali in operation. And, while there are an estimated 5 trillion tons of natural hydrogen reserves in about a dozen countries in the world, the resources are likely too widely dispersed for economical recovery.
With natural hydrogen aside, 95% of hydrogen is produced via steam reforming methane. This is an energy negative process that also emits large amounts of GHGs. The combined negative effects of steam methane reforming result in a situation where we'd be better off just burning the methane in the first place.
So-called "blue" hydrogen is Big Oil's attempt at greenwashing hydrogen production using carbon capture and sequestration. The sad truth is that CCS hasn't been deployed beyond pilot projects. What's more, the CO2 that is recovered is used in a "enhanced recovery" techniques. Essentially, the stuff is pumped into underperforming oil and gas wells in order to increase production. Real green, right?
That leaves "green" hydrogen. That is, hydrogen from electrolysis powered by renewables. The problem is that electrolysis first requires desalination and/or purification of water. As we're all too well aware, access to fresh water is becoming ever more problematic. Both processes also require large amounts of energy. Then there's the electrolysis bit which is, in and of itself, hugely energy intensive. Using renewables to produce "green" hydrogen would require the equivalent of the total amount of energy generated by solar and wind in 2019...worldwide! That's a huge opportunity cost that would impact our ability to decarbonize the electricity generation sector; a cost we cannot afford.
Lastly, harnessing hydrogen has all kinds of issues, from materials embrittlement to fuel cell longevity, hydrogen fuel cells for electricity generation in EVs, etc., is massively inefficient (well-to-wheel) in comparison to alternatives. And don't even get me started on hydrogen combustion. Plainly put, that's simple the worst idea ever.
I do wish the "EV vs ICE" game didn't become so political. Years ago it was fun comparing the two differences, now people dive into their camps trenches and just hurl projectiles at the other. The middle ground of EV's and ICE eroded it seems, similar to politics in America I suppose.
Another informative , debunking video. So much, intentional misinformation, ..and new types ev are more equiped with lfp batteries, without cobalt.
FYI. The biggest user of Cobalt is the production of fuel for ICE engines, diesel and Jet fuel production. Check out the stats. The oil industry does not want the public to know this stat. I do not remember the percentage of what the OIL industry uses on the overall production but If my memory serves me correctly they use more than 65% ( possibly up to 80%) of the world production of Cobalt.
Early gang can't wait to be able afford an EV. Love that you're trying your best to educate people on misinformation.
EV will never be at 100 percent. It’s only good source Adam alternative for now
But it's way ahead of ICE, which (at best) can manage only 30% efficiency....
Love your work Ben !!!!
H2 is being phased out nearly every where, even in Europe.
Currently 43% of electricity generation in the UK comes from renewable sources.
I would like to add winter turbines are also highly recyclable.
Unfortunately, there are many places in the US that do not have the infrastructure to recycle them.
Great channel!
On the subject of Cobalt. I can’t find my source at the moment but Cobalt is used in the refining of Oil into Petrol and Diesel! And has been for at least the past 50 years, and no sign of them moving away from using it.
The problem is not people hating EVs. The biggest issue is trying to impose a solution to people whether they like or not or ignoring whether this solution is suitable to their needs. It’s the restriction of choice that triggers the hate. If you like an EV, you can go and buy one. But if you want an ICE because in more suitable to your needs you are heavily penalised for that. In the UK, if you remove political interference from the car market, today majority of people would buy an ICE car. Yet the government , will not respect this democratic majority.
You're doing god's work, Ben. We really needed a dedicated channel like yours to debunk these myths.
Thank you Ben for debunking these brought and paid for EV haters , they keep spewing out lies non stop , keep up the good work cheers from Australia 🇦🇺
Good job. I have these discussions with many a person. They usually don’t know many facts. One item that would have been nice to add would have been how many batteries are recycled as well as the 90% of the materials returned after recycling. I think that’s the big problem now is getting old batteries to get recycled. Thanks for the good spot check on bad information.
15:47 as I understand the issue, the biggest problem with EV battery recycling is that there aren't enough worn out EV batteries because
1) they are degrading too slowly in EVs
2) the are being repurposed by people as static battery storage for homes and such, even after they've degraded too much to be used for EVs.
That's correct. The CEO of the german Voltfang GmbH, a company specializing in second life applications for car batteries, recently said in an interview with the german public broadcasting station WDR1: Most of the decommissioned electric car batteries are still ideal for storing electricity. "They arrive with a usable capacity of over 85 to 95 percent, so they're practically as good as new."
Correct.....
@@bgdexter I would hope they were still newish considering they were probably from cars only a few years old or less.
@@bgdexter "They arrive with a usable capacity of over 85 to 95 percent, so they're practically as good as new." Why, then, are they throwing perfectly good batteries (new)? Do they replace them for fun?
@@LAJAP They get batteries mostly from crashed cars.
Fleet vehicules such as delivery trucks , busses, and taxis account for 74 percent of pollution in cities
The chart you showed was the percent for 'Transportation Only' greenhouse gases. The chart from the other article you showed was the percent of Transportation gases versus ALL greenhouse gases created from manufacturing, cement production, aluminum production, etc.
Great video as always Ben.
Just a point regarding H2 in the UK. It’s failed; there were 11 H2 refuelling stations in the UK as of Sept 2023, Shell closed 3 stations in recent years, siting supply complications a falling demand. It seems to be overlooked that H2 being a very light gas with widely spaced atoms makes containment extremely difficult and it always finds a way to escape. If you use a green energy source to produce Green Hydrogen you may as well put that energy directly into a battery and save time and cost on producing H2.
Fascinating video, more please, let’s remove the FUD everywhere!
Great work! I hope my family could get an education from one of your videos sometime soon. We need more discussions like this. I’ve believed for a long time that electrifying our vehicle fleet and building out renewable energy was key to helping mitigate climate change! We need more people like Ben dispelling the myths cause SO many people believe them. Keep it up! 👍🏼