I love Teslas

LOL, an ABC article with a big endorsement for EV's. Quelle Suprise.

"These figures come from the Electric Vehicle Council" (go to the end of the article) says it all about the integrity of the research.

VW (also an EV manufacturer) got a much different result. whereby the determining factor is the mix of coal vs nuclear in the recharging grid.
A country with nuclear power (think France or several states in the US) will gain a CO2 saving from EV's.
A country or state without nuclear has the opposite result. From Stanford University: "in Wyoming, a Diesel car always emits less carbon than an electric car"

 

‘That was my conclusion before I even clicked on the link. Already knew the outcome.

 

this one freaks me out..

 

That's why EV's are now banned from multi-story carparks (including apartment buildings) in many German cities. Too many fires.

 

That's not just fire, that's a massive explosion..
even an ICE doesn't explode in such manner unless it's an oil tanker..

 

Is that from ONE EV?

 

A lot of truth here

 

seems so..happened in malaysia recently

 

The numbers in the ABC story are accurate and easily provable with extremely basic math. The results are broken down by territory, and even in the areas that have the least renewable energy, EV's are far, far cleaner than ICE's. Northern Territory, for example, has 85% natural gas power, and Queensland has 62% coal power and another 15% natural gas, and EV CO2 is still less than half ICE in those areas.

Here's what Volkswagen really had to say: https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/en/electric-and-hybrid/living-electric/discover-electric/the-carbon-footprint-of-electric-cars.html

 

No it's not, that's a website for selling their EV's. Their actual study showed only a marginal benefit over the lifecycle of a diesel golf vs an E-Golf.

There is now overwhelming evidence from multiple studies that any benefit of an EV is a function of where the majority of grid power comes from.

Where is the proof that "EV CO2 is still less than half ICE in those areas"? I can assure you from personal experience that there are very, very few EV's in the Northern Territory. I note you omitted New South Wales from your list, which is Australia's most populous state. We get 75% of our power from coal, how can EV emissions possibly be half?

 

How's the depreciation going?

https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/motoring-news/cant-sell-its-cars-horror-news-for-tesla-owners-as-prices-plunge/news-story/749f5f80c8592e5d90921e566c6abcba

 

Saw that last week and this is what made me LOL

 

I didn't omit New South Wales, I simply mentioned the two that are actually the worst areas -- worse than New South Wales (https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/data-charts/australian-electricity-generation-fuel-mix-calendar-year-2022)

Given that EV's are around 5 times more efficient than ICEs, the question is: How could it not be less than half?

A gallon of gas has contains 33.4 kilowatt hours of energy. A gallon of gas will take a mid-sized SUV maybe 25 miles in typical use (and probably closer to the 19 mpg my Base Macan (2.0t) averages in typical combined highway/city use).

The Tesla Model Y Long Range mid-size SUV has a 75 KwH battery. This means that the battery only has the capacity of 2.25 gallons of gas, yet the Model Y has a rated range of 331 miles, and a typical real-world range of aound 280 miles. In other words, the Model Y gets 124.4 miles per gallon (typical real-world), or 147 mpg using rated range. Since EV's are slightly more efficient in the city, it will be closer to rated range if all of the driving is in the city.

If we say the ICE mid-size SUV gets 25 mpg in combined city/highway driving (which is generous for a mid-size SUV), then the Model Y is 5 times more efficient. If most of the driving is in the city, then the multiplier is even higher since the ICE SUV will get much worse mileage in city traffic, while the EV mileage improves a bit in the city.

When the EV is 5+ times more efficient, it takes 1/5th the energy to power it, and it will require far less CO2 even with dirty energy sources. The numbers for all of the areas are in the report we are discussing (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-27/comparing-electric-cars-and-petrol-cars/103746132). In New South Wales, EV CO2 is about 46% of ICE.

The more miles you drive the EV, the more the CO2 advantage increases (because there is a one-time hit on CO2 to build the EV battery).

 

Plus those reports disregard the number of EV ownets who are uding their own PV suppliec power at home.

 

1. Has there been a study that can model the embodied energy component of upgrading the infrastructure to cope with charging an ever increasing EV fleet as a % of all road users? For example, in Melbourne, the current scenario is that the existing grid can cope with approximately 11% of the car fleet being EV. If we include the production of solar panels to mitigate this problem, their subsequent installation, upgrading the grid, what is the cost in terms of capital outlay and C02 emissions?

2. Let's imagine as of today, no car worldwide emits anything. That still leaves 86% of other industries emitting C02. Can anyone explain what other strategies have been implemented that are as aggressively targeted as government policy towards the automobile? Shipping and fashion spring to mind.

3. Why don't we go nuclear for our energy needs? Thorium salt reactors are almost at the stage where they'll be consuming their own waste.

4. Trees appear to like C02. Can anyone explain how much is too much?

I have little idea as to the answers above. I do know however, there is no industry that has not been self serving, secretive and irrelevant, when left leaning industries and governments flock together.

 

Anyone who seeks to understand the facts behind climate and EV information has to wade through an ocean of reports and journalism produced by vested interests. Google any specific topic and you'll have 3 pages of advocacy articles before you find anything approximating balance.

The ABC in Australia is a government funded media outlet with a pronounced bias to progressive ideology. Catastrophic climate change and EV's as a solution are articles of faith for them. Their EV report was based on "data" from the Electric Vehicle Council, which is a lobby group funded by EV manufacturers and their supply chain partners, for the purpose of selling more EV's. In Australia we have a range of taxpayer-funded subsidies for EV's and their infrastructure. They have reached 8.4% of new vehicle sales.

But back to the ABC report. I saw the figure of 7.4 tons of CO2 for EV battery manufacture, then I clicked on the link "get the data". Attached here is the "data". Not exactly convincing.

So I looked for other opinions. Techcrunch is a tech start-up community publication and not exactly right wing, however they do value technical integrity. Their estimate for EV battery CO2 is 8 to 20 tons. https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/22/the-tough-calculus-of-emissions-and-the-future-of-evs/

I've spent some time in China, many trips over 10 years of doing business there, visiting technology manufacturing areas. The pollution is almost incomprehensible. Forget CO2, what they pump into their rivers and air is a wide range of toxic filth. Yes, they have pollution laws, but their economy runs on corruption (like India btw) and bribes circumvent enforcement. The problem for EV's is that China owns 90+ percent of the supply chain for batteries, motors, connectors, etc. You can't avoid them.

Thus I don't buy arguments as to the environmental benefits of EV's.

In 2013, VW built a "1-litre" car, that used 1 litre of fuel per 100 kilometres. That's 240 miles per US gallon. They discontinued it because customers wanted V8 SUV's. The fact is that we have the technology to dramatically reduce fossil fuel consumption and this would be better for the planet in every dimension than subsiding and proselytising EV's.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The Volkswagen XL1 (VW 1-litre) is a two-person limited production diesel-powered plug-in hybrid produced by Volkswagen.

 

We don't go nuclear because it's too damn expensive! Not to mention the waste disposal problem. If nuclear is so damn great, why are the countries who have lots of them are NOT building any new ones but are retiring the old ones??? 4 times more shut down than under construction. Australia is about the only country in the world thinking of STARTING a nuclear program!
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today

 

Apologies, as an ICE the VW has similar fuel consumption to a Tesla, rather than half. My point is that we could have continued on that path to overall reduced emissions.

 

Difficult to know where to begin with this recycled anti-nuclear propaganda. I'm going to pass.

 

I was going to start, but me too.

I get more sense speaking to my 12 week old pup.

I didn’t realise it was still 1967 to some people when it comes to nuclear power, and yet it’s 2075 when it comes to renewables…

 

1. That's OK, just subsidise nuclear to the same amount windfarms are, and we'd all be getting money back!
2. There is no waste disposal problem.
3. Because the left decree them to be dirty, and building them doesn't fit their agenda.

Of course, we could just build another 2,000 coal fired power plants instead.

Like China.

 

Oh come on.

You can do better than that Ian

 

The articles you are finding on the fourth page of google results are lying to you. They take little elements that are true, and spin them wildly out of context to create a false narrative (which become laughably false when you look at the physics). You don't need articles, just do the math yourself. The fact that EV's are around 5 times more efficient than ICE's is dictated by physics, and therefore is not even slightly debatable.

I knew your VW example wasn't accurate because physics dictate that it's not possible. IC engines are 45% efficient at best, but even that is only when they are running at the exact right RPM under the exact right circumstances, which most of the time they definitely are not -- probably around 30% is more accurate for typical driving. EV motors are consistently 95% efficient -- which is already 2 the times the absolute peak IC engine efficiency, and about 3 times the typical real-world IC engine efficiency. Then you have EV efficiency being nearly doubled again when regenerative braking captures 90% of energy from stoplights (that massive energy is completely wasted as brake heat in an ICE). So, when you calculate it, that 2.5 - 3 times innate engine efficiency, then nearly doubling that rate again due to regen, the physics put you in the 5-6 times range of efficiency.

When you look at the real world, the Model Y goes 300 miles on 2.25 gallons of fuel, and it is a full-size car with plenty of storage, and it can do that every day in any type of driving (e.g. city, highway, combined). It's easily 5 times more efficient than a comparable ICE SUV (typically even more in city traffic). The Tesla results are not even a little bit surprising, because they dictated by the efficiency physics outlined above. Theoretical matches real-word, which it will every single time.

When somebody tells you any ICE come close to matching EV efficiency -- they are lying to you. They might as well tell you that gravity goes up.

The ABC article is actually using the exact figures in your attached chart. The 7.4 you mention is only for the EV battery manufacture, the total in the article is 7.5 for the EV car plus 7.4 for the battery (exactly matching the 7.454... and 7.390... figures in your chart).

The one-time impact is 8.4 for the ICE, versus 14.9 for the EV, which is why the savings are only 47% for the miles used. When you look at ongoing impact from driving (ignoring one-time build CO2 cost) -- the ongoing driving CO2 from EV's is only 22% of ICE (10.5/45.9).


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-27/comparing-electric-cars-and-petrol-cars/103746132
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Or spend $30billion on Snowy II (including the new transmission link it needs) to desecrate the national park, when we could have built a reactor on the Liddell site in NSW for $11billion.

https://michaelwest.com.au/dear-ministers-why-do-costs-and-timelines-for-snowy-2-0-keep-shifting-yet-are-so-readily-approved/