German study finds EVs are dirtier than diesel vehicles

[ykX]

"Electric vehicles have long been hailed as a cleaner alternative to gas- and diesel-powered vehicles, but a group of German scientists claim EVs are actually worse for the environment than their fossil fuel-burning counterparts.

In their study, titled, "Electric Vehicles are not a Panacea for Climate Change,” German scientists Christoph Buchal, Hans-Dieter Karl and Hans-Werner Sinn claim that electric vehicles are responsible for 11-28 percent more CO2 emissions than their diesel-powered counterparts. The scientists' findings are based on the entire EV production process, as well as Germany's current energy mix."

LeftLaneNews

[ccap41]

*GASP*

[Drew Dowdell]

The study based its findings on power by coal in a country that is rapidly moving to clean energy sources.  Renewable energy use is now very slightly higher than coal use in Germany as of last year. There are days in the summertime when Germany generates ALL of its power from renewable energy.

Even here in the U.S. where coal is still dominant, in most states, one who drives a Tesla can select clean power for their home (as I have, I get my energy from a wind farm). 

TL:DR - the study is flawed F.U.D.

[ykX]

14 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The study based its findings on power by coal in a country that is rapidly moving to clean energy sources.  Renewable energy use is now very slightly higher than coal use in Germany as of last year. There are days in the summertime when Germany generates ALL of its power from renewable energy.

Even here in the U.S. where coal is still dominant, in most states, one who drives a Tesla can select clean power for their home (as I have, I get my energy from a wind farm). 

TL:DR - the study is flawed F.U.D.

At the moment only 17% of total energy produced is from renewable sources (including hydro).  I doubt if suddenly a high percentage of people will switch to EVs it will cover the demand.

How about that part:

According to the group's findings, mining and processing the lithium, cobalt and manganese necessary to make a battery pack for a Tesla Model 3 generates up to 15 tons of CO2 emissions. Given a vehicle lifespan of 10 years at 15,000km per year, that averages out to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometer.

Edited April 23, 2019 by ykX

[Drew Dowdell]

1 minute ago, ykX said:

How about that part:

According to the group's findings, mining and processing the lithium, cobalt and manganese necessary to make a battery pack for a Tesla Model 3 generates up to 15 tons of CO2 emissions. Given a vehicle lifespan of 10 years at 15,000km per year, that averages out to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometer.

They have to add that on to the burning of coal to get a total just 3 g/km higher than diesel.  They are claiming that a GLC with a 3-liter diesel emits 176 g/km while a Telsa model emits 156 to 180 g/km if running on coal. 

But if the Tesla is powered by renewables, then the Tesla only get 98 g/km. Tesla supercharger stations that have solar panels (not all, but many do) put more power into the grid than the cars take out, so Tesla is further adding to the reduction of fossil fuel usage. 

I wonder who sponsored the study.... follow the money.  It will probably be funded by an oil company or automobile manufacturer. 

[David]

You can always put any auto in a bad light situation. That story above is total F.U.D. and as Drew stated already the country in it's push is moving away from coal electric powered to alternative green energy.

Here in Washington we will close down our last coal power plant in 2025. The last nuclear power plant will close in 2045 at which time the few Natural gas plants will become emergency reserve backups to the state as we go 100% green power production. Now yes we do lead the nation in green power and especially hydro.

Compare this to a dirty state powered by Coal such as West Virgina which has some of the dirtiest power generation in the nation.

Check out your own state here:

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WV#tabs-4

 

[David]

Looking into the ifo institue, they are clearly big business focused and appears to be funded via a special Bavarian group. 

Wiki has this on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifo_Institute_for_Economic_Research

The author of the study is clearly a big business focused person.

http://www.hanswernersinn.de/en

ifo Institute has merged to become cesifo institute.

http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/CESifo-Group/ifo.html

Clearly the special interest groups are focused on fighting the change to green energy and cleaner auto transportation it would appear.

[Drew Dowdell]

THAT said... the real issue isn't cars these days anyway, it is shipping. 

Rail, Air, Ship, Truck are all bigger emitters of CO2 than cars.

Rail and Truck have started cleaning up their act. I don't know about Air. Ships are way way behind. 

[David]

10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

THAT said... the real issue isn't cars these days anyway, it is shipping. 

Rail, Air, Ship, Truck are all bigger emitters of CO2 than cars.

Rail and Truck have started cleaning up their act. I don't know about Air. Ships are way way behind. 

Both Seattle and Tacoma terminals are currently dredging out to support the new LNG Super Container ships that can only go into a few ports in America. Both ports have gone green with support for LNG as well as other green energy sources that newer ships are using.

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, dfelt said:

Both Seattle and Tacoma terminals are currently dredging out to support the new LNG Super Container ships that can only go into a few ports in America. Both ports have gone green with support for LNG as well as other green energy sources that newer ships are using.

It's going to take a LONG time to replace the container ship fleet. 

[ccap41]

I get my gasoline from the renewable gas stations. No worries here. 

[riviera74]

The real issue here is that Coal cannot compete, so this IFO study is really Big Coal's way of saying, "Turn back the clock to 1980".  Batteries are fairly efficient now; just wait unit Lithium-Ion is replaced by a much better battery type.  What will Big Coal say when it is far cheaper to power everything electrically via renewables?

Eventually (I hope sooner than later) all of transport will no longer need oil or natural gas.  Coal is already too expensive for power generation as it is because of natural gas and renewable energy sources.

[Drew Dowdell]

3 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

The real issue here is that Coal cannot compete, so this IFO study is really Big Coal's way of saying, "Turn back the clock to 1980".  Batteries are fairly efficient now; just wait unit Lithium-Ion is replaced by a much better battery type.  What will Big Coal say when it is far cheaper to power everything electrically via renewables?

Eventually (I hope sooner than later) all of transport will no longer need oil or natural gas.  Coal is already too expensive for power generation as it is because of natural gas and renewable energy sources.

Nat Gas is so cheap that in some cases they're drilling the well and then capping it because they're betting the cost will go up sometime in the future. It's easier to just leave it in the ground than it is to store it long term. 

[David]

31 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

The real issue here is that Coal cannot compete, so this IFO study is really Big Coal's way of saying, "Turn back the clock to 1980".  Batteries are fairly efficient now; just wait unit Lithium-Ion is replaced by a much better battery type.  What will Big Coal say when it is far cheaper to power everything electrically via renewables?

Eventually (I hope sooner than later) all of transport will no longer need oil or natural gas.  Coal is already too expensive for power generation as it is because of natural gas and renewable energy sources.

As solid state batteries that DO NOT need cobalt become the new norm with denser storage and power and liter we will then see this become an even bigger change.