Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars

David Towle said:
Its short on details, but makes you think. At least PHEVs need a lot fewer batteries.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...-cars-considerably-worse-climate-diesel-cars?
Click to expand...
Looking at some of the other articles they aggregate it is clear ZeroHedge is full of right wing drivel.

It is of course true that CO2 emissions during production and whether the power utility is using coal as a significant energy source are important considerations. Vehicle efficiency is another factor. But the studies I have read suggest that over the expected life of a vehicle, electric vehicles (PHEV and BEV) produce significantly less CO2 and other forms of pollutuion than gasoline or diesel powered vehicles.

However, I do believe, in terms of having the needed impact to make a dent in trying to avoid planetary climate disaster, power utilities must shift to all renewables and public transportation must become the dominant form of transport- along with a slew of other lifestyle changes. Articles and studies such as this feed the mass delusion and will be used by historians of the future as further evidence of our collective insanity- grasping at plastic straws, desperately hoping to maintain the "good" life while destroying life as we know it.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
FYI the same study appears as the topic of the second editorial in today's Wall St Journal. Right wing but respected and influential.
 
The Union of Concerned Scientists ran a very satisfactory in-depth study on cradle-to-grave emissions of EVs and concluded that including all upstream emissions, mining, and manufacturing, they are responsible for less than half the lifetime emissions of equivalent gasoline cars. And as coal vanishes, that figure gets better and better.
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions
More up-to-date numbers can be found in granular form with their emissions tool. The US electric grid is currently averaging 1.009 lbCO₂/kWh in 2017, lower than when the UCS study was written (1.161 lbCO₂/kWh, 2014 numbers).
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/ev-emissions-tool

As for diesel in particular... diesel produces 2.5% more CO₂/BTU, but has 23.1% upstream cost (vs 26.9% upstream for gasoline), resulting in a total of 27.92 lbCO₂/gal (vs 23.52 lbCO₂/gal for E10 gasoline). Running these numbers against user-reported mileage from Fuelly, a diesel car has almost identical (±5%) CO₂/mile when compared to an equivalent gasoline car.
 
Zero hedge is a Russian puppet.

But I believe a good PHEV is more environmentally friendly than a long range EV. It just doesn't make sense to put that much battery in a car. There should be a better solution someday. Maybe a fuel cell as range extender and a smallish battery for daily driving.
 
I am a currently a strong PHEV advocate as well, but have high hopes for EV improvements making battery technology feasible for 300 mile EVs at half the battery weight they have now. This takes a lot out of this battery being non-environmentally friendly argument and lowers the weight that has to be constantly carried by the EV, improving efficiency. Cutting required battery mass by half and building adequate charging infrastructure could get us there in a few years. I'm sure a lot of y'all read about Innolith (Swiss startup) reporting that they were making good progress toward higher energy density batteries...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/4/18293989/innolith-ev-battery-breakthrough-lithium-ion
 
Last edited:
Years ago I remember reading about a new lithium ion battery technology. The idea was to replace the graphite that is currently used with graphene and would easily double the capacity.

Whatever the eventual technology, it would be great if our batteries could be upgraded when the time comes.
 
ClarityMTL said:
Years ago I remember reading about a new lithium ion battery technology. The idea was to replace the graphite that is currently used with graphene and would easily double the capacity.

Whatever the eventual technology, it would be great if our batteries could be upgraded when the time comes.
Click to expand...
In May, 2016, Inside EVs wrote an article about how BMW was offering some i3 owners battery upgrades (81-mile range to 114 miles). At $8,000, Inside EVs decided the upgrade wasn't cost-effective. Would you pay $8K for an ultra-high-tech graphene battery upgrade for a 94-mile EV range? What if Honda felt generous and cut you a $4K deal?
 
JCA said:
You can safely stop reading this "study" by "German researchers" at the point that they say "Given a lifetime of 10 years and an annual travel distance of 15,000 kilometres" -- they're starting assumption is that every single battery pack lasts 94,000 miles and that's it -- trash the whole thing and build a whole new one. All evidence is that they the average battery pack life is *much* higher, that only parts of the pack may need to be rebuilt/replaced, and that much of the material can be recycled. I also suspect they aren't fairly calculating *both* the costs of generating the electricity to run the car, and the energy/materials required to create the diesel fuel for their favored vehicles.

I'm sorry, but only an idiot could believe that particulate-spewing diesel engines could ever be "cleaner" than another fuel source, whether gas or electricity. That's why I had little sympathy for the owners who fell for the VW scam, and felt their car registrations should have been immediately suspended and let them work directly with VW for a fix, and only allowed to drive them again when they met the regulations.

[Rant off] :)
Click to expand...
I used to hear about a disposal fee for ev batteries. But if you buy a recycled or a new pac they will definately want your old one because many of the cells are still in great working order.
Sounds like the study was biased and paid for by someone with a conflict of interest.
 
Zerohedge has been putting out similar nonsense for years. Think alt-right troll factory. This is the Honda Clarity forum, right? If every fossil car was priced to pay for the removal of it's lifetime emissions, gassers would be solely the provence of the wealthy. You can charge an EV from your own solar panels.
 
David Towle said:
Its short on details, but makes you think. At least PHEVs need a lot fewer batteries.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...-cars-considerably-worse-climate-diesel-cars?
Click to expand...

The link goes to a stock investor's website. Nobody writes articles or blog posts for that kind of site because they're interested in EVs or the environment; they only do it to promote a position in buying or selling stock. The agenda of whoever wrote that collection of lies and half-truths is revealed in the final sentence: "So maybe Elon Musk's plan to save the world with electric cars is the biggest scam of our lifetime..." In other words, it's just one more bit of propaganda from the rabid anti-Tesla cultists.

Contrariwise, if you're actually interested in a scientific analysis of the question, I recommend this study from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave"
​
 
David Towle said:
The onslaught of EVs and PHEVs from real car manufacturers are going to kill Tesla demand and bankrupt the highly leveraged company. VW, BMW, Toyota, Honda etc. can all afford to sell EVs at a loss and Musk can't.
Click to expand...

Tesla is heavily in debt, it's true, because of its heavy investment in future growth. But arguably, legacy auto makers, with many, many billions invested in soon-to-be-obsolete internal combustion engine drivetrain tech, will soon be in a much worse financial position.

For the reason why it's the legacy auto makers who will soon be in financial trouble, not Tesla -- for the reason why during every disruptive tech revolution, some of the old market leaders fail, to be replaced by startup companies, and that will happen in this one, too -- see "The Innovator's Dilemma".
​
 
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
Tesla is heavily in debt, it's true, because of its heavy investment in future growth. But arguably, legacy auto makers, with many, many billions invested in soon-to-be-obsolete internal combustion engine drivetrain tech, will soon be in a much worse financial position./Q

Last week I visited a Tesla store to see what it was like and to find out if we could afford a leased Tesla. It was a mixed experience.
1). No cars to test drive. Obviously not yet hurting for customers.
2) Model 3 wait is down to 2 weeks (CA)
3) Cannot lease base M3 - only M3 plus.
4) Price $479/mo w5k dwn 12k mi/yr. This is comparable to other cars with similar range but lower level of tech.

No hard sell - everyone gets the same deal and staff is salaried.
Tesla is on the verge of being price competitive and that is pretty good considering the reduced fed. credit. I would say they are close to being unstoppable.
(But we leased Clarity Electric due to $)
Click to expand...
 
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
Tesla is heavily in debt, it's true, because of its heavy investment in future growth. But arguably, legacy auto makers, with many, many billions invested in soon-to-be-obsolete internal combustion engine drivetrain tech, will soon be in a much worse financial position.

For the reason why it's the legacy auto makers who will soon be in financial trouble, not Tesla -- for the reason why during every disruptive tech revolution, some of the old market leaders fail, to be replaced by startup companies, and that will happen in this one, too -- see "The Innovator's Dilemma".
​
Click to expand...
An interesting and perhaps insightful comment- but I can't help adding a big "Maybe."

The automotive marketplace is not competitive in the sense that the government is allowing the price of carbon to be artificially low because of corporate interests and corruption.

Further, the boon in the fracking industry, while temporary, helps depress oil prices.

Third, many Americans' including lower to mid-middle class are "heavily" invested in their SUVs and mini-vans. They are accustomed to $60 per fillup- so a 50%-200% increase (environmentally justified)- would be be perceived as a major threat. And the aforementioned group would be less likely to receive offset government subsidies/credits- as their incomes are just high enough to make the subsidies counter productive.

Fourth, Tesla has stumbled on self-driving technology and their cars are, not unlike the Clarity, heavy and not particularly efficient as far as BEVs go or can go.

Fifth, their competition is hardly sleeping. The reasons range from necessity (fuel standards) to legitimate (global markets demand energy alternatives even if the US is retrograde).

Sixth- just as US public transportation is weak- so is our electric, and for that matter hydrogen infrastructure. Even today, apartment dwellers are not prime candidates for BEVs- and even the Clarity's PHEV approach makes it less than ideal for renters who can't easily recharge overnight.

Seventh- the benefits of EV tech- without a major shift to renewables for the grid- are less than environmentally compelling- even if still desirable.

But Tesla is committed to be a disruptor. And the automotive and trucking industry is one accustomed to a certain pace of technological change much slower than a Tesla. Apple, Amazon or Google have.

Finally despite our dangerously irresponsible government and populace/economy addicted to low carbon prices- we do not exist in a bubble- or I should say we do- and that bubble will be burst- hopefully sooner than later.

So Tesla is a disruptor and their tech is ahead- but external and competitive factors by no means assure their success. The marketplace is not just anti anti-competitive- it is highly dysfunctional.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
Lowell_Greenberg said:
An interesting and perhaps insightful comment- but I can't help adding a big "Maybe."

The automotive marketplace is not competitive in the sense that the government is allowing the price of carbon to be artificially low because of corporate interests and corruption.

Further, the boon in the fracking industry, while temporary, helps depress oil prices.

Third, many Americans' including lower to mid-middle class are "heavily" invested in their SUVs and mini-vans. They are accustomed to $60 per fillup- so a 50%-200% increase (environmentally justified)- would be be perceived as a major threat. And the aforementioned group would be less likely to receive offset government subsidies/credits- as their incomes are just high enough to make the subsidies counter productive.

Fourth, Tesla has stumbled on self-driving technology and their cars are, not unlike the Clarity, heavy and not particularly efficient as far as BEVs go or can go.

Fifth, their competition is hardly sleeping. The reasons range from necessity (fuel standards) to legitimate (global markets demand energy alternatives even if the US is retrograde).

Sixth- just as US public transportation is weak- so is our electric, and for that matter hydrogen infrastructure. Even today, apartment dwellers are not prime candidates for BEVs- and even the Clarity's PHEV approach makes it less than ideal for renters who can't easily recharge overnight.

Seventh- the benefits of EV tech- without a major shift to renewables for the grid- are less than environmentally compelling- even if still desirable.

But Tesla is committed to be a disruptor. And the automotive and trucking industry is one accustomed to a certain pace of technological change much slower than a Tesla. Apple, Amazon or Google have.

Finally despite our dangerously irresponsible government and populace/economy addicted to low carbon prices- we do not exist in a bubble- or I should say we do- and that bubble will be burst- hopefully sooner than later.

So Tesla is a disruptor and their tech is ahead- but external and competitive factors by no means assure their success. The marketplace is not just anti anti-competitive- it is highly dysfunctional.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Quoting myself:-) And then there is hydrogen- the most plentiful element in the Universe and an alternative energy contender. Musk derides source this- probably more from selfish than enlightened self-interest- but the rest of the automotive industry seems to feel otherwise.

The automobile itself should die- and public transportation is the only truly environmentally responsible mode of transportation. But it may be a very slow and agonizing death given how dependent the US is on the automobile and how environmentally destructive it is. Indeed, the concept of a disruptor applies not only to the corporate marketplace, but countries and other organizational structures. And the US is ripe for disruption.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
Lowell_Greenberg said:
An interesting and perhaps insightful comment- but I can't help adding a big "Maybe."
Click to expand...

I admit to some pro-Tesla bias. Heck, I'm proud to proclaim my pro-Tesla bias! :)

Lowell_Greenberg said:
Fourth, Tesla has stumbled on self-driving technology...
Click to expand...

Despite being a pretty devoted Tesla fan, I think their claims about self-driving tech are somewhere between somewhat exaggerated and vastly exaggerated. It's great that we're seeing progress toward self-driving cars which will eventually be much safer than human-driven cars, but I don't think we'll actually see full-fledged, dependable, relatively safe (that is, considerably safer than human-driven) self-driving cars for several years, and possibly not for 10-20 years. Elon Musk's claim that Tesla will achieve this within 12-15 months is, IMHO, very unrealistic.

Frankly, I wish Tesla would concentrate on making great electric cars, and leave the development of full driving autonomy to Waymo, which IMHO is rather more advanced than Tesla is, and IMHO already more advanced than Tesla is likely to be within the next year or so.

Lowell_Greenberg said:
...and their cars are, not unlike the Clarity, heavy and not particularly efficient as far as BEVs go or can go.
Click to expand...

I firmly disagree. The Tesla Model 3 (TM3) is a, um, model of energy efficiency, appreciably more efficient than any other BEV with anywhere near its power. Automotive teardown analysis expert Sandy Munro, after a thorough examination of the TM3, raves about its innovations and its efficiency, both energy efficiency and the cost-efficiency of its internal systems (altho he has nothing good to say about how Tesla makes its car bodies!). Sandy compared the TM3 to the Chevy Bolt and the BMW i3, and found the TM3 far more advanced and impressive. In fact, he now describes himself as a Tesla fanboy. What a turnaround after all his early criticism of the TM3, before he actually performed his teardown!

You have to look at something as under-powered and weakly performing as the Hyundai Ioniq to find any plug-in EV with a better miles-per-kWh rating than the TM3. Furthermore, the energy efficiency of newer entries such as the Jaguar I-Pace and (even worse) the Audi e-Tron are downright embarrassing in their poor energy efficiency as compared to the TM3.

Lowell_Greenberg said:
Fifth, their competition is hardly sleeping.
Click to expand...

The competition is fast asleep. As Elon Musk quite accurately pointed out in the "Full Self Driving" presentation the other day, there still isn't any BEV from any other auto maker that can rival the tech in the 2012 Model S. And that's been 7 years ago! Tesla is more than 7 years ahead of all other plug-in EV makers.

Again, that's just an opinion... not fact.

Lowell_Greenberg said:
Seventh- the benefits of EV tech- without a major shift to renewables for the grid- are less than environmentally compelling- even if still desirable.
Click to expand...

Once again I firmly disagree. The grid is getting "cleaner" year by year. Furthermore, in regions where EV sales are high, it's much cleaner than average. So plug-in EVs are even more weighted towards lower life-cycle emissions than the national electric grid average emission levels suggest.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top