Tesla Model 3 @ £26,000

[SW18]

The Brussels Times - Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones, German study shows

... and who funded that study, I wonder! No vested interests in Germany, surely

That said, it does make sense that a car burning fuel onboard could have less losses than one using power that has been transported over huge distances since it was generated and then stored in batteries.

 

[grober]

Kohlemotoren, Windmotoren und Dieselmotoren: Was zeigt die CO2-Bilanz?

Buchal, Christoph / Karl, Hans-Dieter / Sinn, Hans-Werner
the paper as referenced in that article paints a slightly different picture summarised here
CESifo Group Munich - ifo Schnelldienst: Electric Vehicles are not a Panacea for Climate Change
A few comments:- while correct to reference the overall CO2 /kilometer figure for any vehicle should include the emisssions burden of its production[ {battery in particular } and the CO2 produced by the electricity needed for charging it does qualify this saying that the final figure relies on Germany's heavy reliance on coal to generate electricity in the final calculation. Norway for example uses hydro-electric power for the bulk of its electricity generation meaning the lifetime CO2/kilometer figure for electric cars there would be much less. Another glaring omission is CO2 emissions generated by the extraction/drilling refining/ production and transport/supply of aformentioned diesel fuel before its burned in the engine- this appears to have been conveniently ignored in the argument???
Indeed if you reference the original article in question it mainly centres on the case for hydrogen/methane as a fuel for the future whose CO2 economy is predicated on its role as a storage medium for renewable energy generated by surplus wind and solar energy ! This is a slightly different spin to that found in that Brussels Times Article.

 

[whitenemesis]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[st13phil]

The Brussels Times - Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones, German study shows

^ Oh dear. Once again reality catches up with the scientifically illiterate political "green" movement

 

[markjay]

EVs were never meant to be 'environmentally friendly '.

EVs consume energy like any other other vehicle (or worst), the only long-term solution for reducing energy consumption is... driving less.

Said that, EVs save lives by reducibg pollution and improving air quality in city centres, and this in itself is very important.

But EVs won't save the planet, we already know that.

 

[unimog]

Any talk of EV's needs a disclaimer like the BBC has when referring to 'Migrants' in the news.... EV's are not zero emission vehicles and should not be referred to as such, they just don't add the concentration of localised city pollution. Unless an individual to can prove charging the vehicle on 100% (certified by some independent trade body) renewable energy, that moniker needs to be dropped.

Food is not 'organic' unless every step of its growing process is independently certified and regularly tested by an independent organisation, therefore electric vehicles can not be 'zero emission' without similar regulation. Once again, the public are being manipulated by a new marketing strategy.

To quote Henry Ford: 'You cant build a reputation on what you are going to do'. Very apt given the nonsense that Musk spouts frequently, from a man who mastered the art of mass production. And considering Tesla has puerile stuff like Fart mode and Dog minder function, but still cant get its Auto wipers to work properly in any of its models, his priorities want shifting in a seismic way, even Peugeot got auto wipers right on my '99 306. Its quite possible he is so arrogant he thinks self driving cars don't need wipers, but as earlier stated that wont ever be the law in the foreseeable, so getting the basics right might help the company along a bit more.

As for fossil fuel extraction, making Lithium Polymer batteries with unknown life span and extracting crude from the ground more than likely equal each other on a 'bad for the environment scale'. I work an a boat with a hybrid plant, we had a 7 year old battery pack which sits in an air conditioned room go thermal on us and as result had to replace all the cells (admittedly its a big power pack, but its relative to the size of the vessel vs a car for example). You could by a brand new, complete pure diesel engine room setup (2 x 4000kw propulsion engines, 3 x 350kw Diesel Alternators) for what it cost to replace the cells, and those propulsion engines are north of $1million US each, again relative to the cost of the vessel. A diesel plant would be good for 25+ years/100000 hours, with only $150000 rebuilds every 50,000 hours or so. And the electric plant was 38% more expensive than the conventional set up to begin with....

I have not ever seen a definitive explanation from Tesla on what it plans to do about battery pack life span and recycling, and how much it costs to replace them. A 10 year old model S needing an £8000 battery replacement in vehicle only worth a little more than that just isn't viable, and will in turn begin to hurt residuals, which are currently artificially high due to Tesla's aggressive leasing and finance incentives.

Further, as the UK had to import 22% of its energy this last weekend from Europe, and less than 0.6% of registered vehicles in the UK are currently pure electric (source Electric vehicle market statistics 2019 - How many electric cars in UK &#63, based on just over 38,000,000 registered UK vehicles December 2018), it doesn't take a genius to work out that the EV crusade is likely going to end up sending developed countries like us back to the dark ages, just like that technically illiterate, knuckle dragging hippy George Monbiot and all his Guardianista cronies would love to have us do.

When people start talking about low emissions and alternative fuels, all you need to remember is the 1997-2014 drive for small diesels with use of tax breaks in this country and ultimately the Dieselgate scandal to get an idea of how this will likely play out, I will put money that pure EV's will end up in the same dustbin in about 15 years time, especially in the UK when people realise that pretty much half the terraced houses in UK cities will have to be knocked down so city dwellers can have some where to park and charge their cars over night, because there is already not enough on street parking, and bankrupt councils wont be putting in kerbside charging points unless they can turn a fat profit from charging users for them. If its going work the infrastructure changes will be eye watering (think HS2 x 10000) so its just fantasy placing all the eggs in the EV basket.

Rant over! Internal combustion 4 life! (disclaimer: I am an Engineer, and after the poor and frankly alarming experience of the power cells this last few weeks, its only served to polarise my own view on this subject)

 

[markjay]

What I don't understand is why Nuclear power is no longer 'the next big thing'.

It provides copious amounts of clean energy. And it works very well in many places. France, for instance.

And for those quoting Chernobyl and Fukushima - can you really compare the damage to the environment and the loss of life from these two (undeniably very serious) incidents, to the ongoing environmental and health impact caused by 60 years of burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories, and motorcars....?

 

[Deleted member 6183]

I live outside a seaside town with a very large tide, there have been moves to build a barrage which will produce electricity.

How cool would it be if us locals could buy EVs and utilise the locally produced tidal electrickery?

I'd feel rather saintly.

 

[Adam88]

^ Oh dear. Once again reality catches up with the scientifically illiterate political "green" movement

Hi, could you send me a contact details regarding your car for sale, thanks.

 

[unimog]

I live outside a seaside town with a very large tide, there have been moves to build a barrage which will produce electricity.

How cool would it be if us locals could buy EVs and utilise the locally produced tidal electrickery?

I'd feel rather saintly.

Of course you should feel saintly, that’s the objective of this eco electrickery business! That’s a true renewable, no turtles or Inuits were harmed in the making of energy for your daily driver!

 

[SW18]

What I don't understand is why Nuclear power is no longer 'the next big thing'.

It provides copious amounts of clean energy. And it works very well in many places. France, for instance.

And for those quoting Chernobyl and Fukushima - can you really compare the damage to the environment and the loss of life from these two (undeniably very serious) incidents, to the ongoing environmental and health impact caused by 60 years of burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories, and motorcars....?

The problem with nuclear power is cost. The government has had to guarantee a ‘strike price’ for the new Hinckley Point plant that is some way above that for renewables, or indeed just about any other type of power plant. I can’t see any reason for building the place other than a political sop to the Chinese. There’s no economic case at all. This is in part because the cost of renewables dropped by about 80% in the past 10 years as production increased and technology improved, making Hinckley Point obsolete whilst it was sitting on the drawing board.

Part of the cost picture with nuclear power is the disposal of waste: everything ever worn by plant operatives become low level waste, tools and materials that spend longer on the plant (and eventually the building) are medium level waste and of course spent fuel is high level waste. It all has to be expensively disposed of. In early days much of the low- and mid-level stuff was just lobbed into holes in the ground, but that’s not considered ok any more so it is processed and disposed more safely. Old reactors being decommissioned (Dounreay, Trawsfynydd, etc) are costing us £blns to close down safely due to the need to process all of the waste including digging up the stuff buried over the years. (I’ve had many enlightening chats about it with a friend in the industry.)

Speaking of France, yes they did make nuclear work well, but they now plan not to replace their aging reactors with new ones. And I do wonder who is picking up the decommissioning costs which will be huge from their aged plants. Since EDF is still in part state owned I expect it can access taxpayer funding as needed. (Not sure how France managed not to fully privatise its utilities in spite of the EU competiton rules but c’est la vie.)

 

[markjay]

The problem with nuclear power is cost. The government has had to guarantee a ‘strike price’ for the new Hinckley Point plant that is some way above that for renewables, or indeed just about any other type of power plant. I can’t see any reason for building the place other than a political sop to the Chinese. There’s no economic case at all. This is in part because the cost of renewables dropped by about 80% in the past 10 years as production increased and technology improved, making Hinckley Point obsolete whilst it was sitting on the drawing board.

Part of the cost picture with nuclear power is the disposal of waste: everything ever worn by plant operatives become low level waste, tools and materials that spend longer on the plant (and eventually the building) are medium level waste and of course spent fuel is high level waste. It all has to be expensively disposed of. In early days much of the low- and mid-level stuff was just lobbed into holes in the ground, but that’s not considered ok any more so it is processed and disposed more safely. Old reactors being decommissioned (Dounreay, Trawsfynydd, etc) are costing us £blns to close down safely due to the need to process all of the waste including digging up the stuff buried over the years. (I’ve had many enlightening chats about it with a friend in the industry.)

Speaking of France, yes they did make nuclear work well, but they now plan not to replace their aging reactors with new ones. And I do wonder who is picking up the decommissioning costs which will be huge from their aged plants. Since EDF is still in part state owned I expect it can access taxpayer funding as needed. (Not sure how France managed not to fully privatise its utilities in spite of the EU competiton rules but c’est la vie.)

Thanks for an informative post.

So our options are:

- Traditional, i.e. burning fuel, which is cheap and can supply all our needs, but kills the planet.

- Renewable, which is clean and reasonably priced, but can't meet demand (yet).

- Nuclear, which will do the trick but is very expensive.

The French chose the expensive option, while we chose the cheaper alternative which is to continue and kill the planet for a couple decades more, i.e. until such time that renewables can meet demand?

 

[kid-jensen]

I don't think we have to look far to find where the French will get the cash to clean-up their ageing nuclear plants.....it's from us!
Not for nothing is the EU called "The French Benefit Club".

And of course, as the fathers of the EU, they enjoy the advantage of only complying with the EU laws that suit them...

 

[SW18]

Thanks for an informative post.

So our options are:

- Traditional, i.e. burning fuel, which is cheap and can supply all our needs, but kills the planet.

- Renewable, which is clean and reasonably priced, but can't meet demand (yet).

- Nuclear, which will do the trick but is very expensive.

The French chose the expensive option, while we chose the cheaper alternative which is to continue and kill the planet for a couple decades more, i.e. until such time that renewables can meet demand?

Yep, that’s about it, I reckon! The energy transition can be hastened or slowed by government policy; most of the alternatives have downsides as well as upsides. But change is coming and the UK’s carbon emissions have plunged in the last 5 years. Whether Tesla is around to be part of the transition isn’t clear but it’s happening anyway!

 

[Oldbarrack]

I've already let my wife feck up our roof with 18 solar panels;
I'm not sacrificing my motoring pleasures with this as well ...

 

[wivenhoe]

“Tesla announce a $ 702 million loss in the first quarter. Revenue $ 4.5 billion against $ 5.2 billion expected”. Musk repeated previous behaviour by announcing a sensational new development the day before - Tesla to have autonomous taxis by 2020.

The shares went down only 2% - any other business and the shares would have tanked. Showing my age - I wonder what Sir John Harvey Jones would have thought !

 

[kid-jensen]

Sir John Harvey-Jones, much as I liked his Troubleshooting series, I think the damage he did to British technology industries was second only to the devastation that Bloody Thatcher managed.

Just before the announcement of yet another British company being closed-down for good, there always seems to be some suit saying something like "I 100% support British industry and wear Union Jack underpants.....but....."

Just like Sir John did on several occasions.

He won't be missed.

 

[neilrr]

Chinese car hailing company demands compensation from Tesla in Times Square, NYC - Global Times

Chinese car hailing company demands compensation from Tesla in Times Square, NYC

Sustainable Trading on Twitter

 

[tangey]

Any talk of EV's needs a disclaimer like the BBC has when referring to 'Migrants' in the news.... EV's are not zero emission vehicles and should not be referred to as such, they just don't add the concentration of localised city pollution. Unless an individual to can prove charging the vehicle on 100% (certified by some independent trade body) renewable energy, that moniker needs to be dropped.

Well of course I get your bigger point, but such a vehicle itself doesn't produce any emission, and so the vehicle is zero emission.

Food is not 'organic' unless every step of its growing process is independently certified and regularly tested by an independent organisation, therefore electric vehicles can not be 'zero emission' without similar regulation. Once again, the public are being manipulated by a new marketing strategy.

One might make a broad comparison that one should not refer to 0% fat natural yohurt as 0% fat because the fat in the milk that was used to produce it still exists somewhere, it's just not in the pot of yohurt in your hand.

A cordless phone conversation involves the base station being plugged into the house socket using a wire, does that means we should not refer it it as wireless ?

You are conflating the grammar with the environmental implications. I accept that some people might think such cars result in less pollution than ICE, as they don't think past their own immediate impact. But most people do realise it's only zero at the point of use, and if there are many that don't, that's an educational issue. I don't think terminology is going to change that.

 

[tron]

French owning their nuclear power? National Security n'est ce pas?
Tidal energy or wind energy takes energy out of an ecosystem. What will be the result of that?