Thread Tools
Jul 17, 2019, 07:50 PM
Seriously?
BE77 Pilot's Avatar
My new electric bicycle is going to save the planet, just watch.
Jul 17, 2019, 09:31 PM
Registered User
The biggest problem with the study is the assumption that co2 controls climate.

There is no evidence that suggests that co2 controls climate, just assumptions. It hasn't happened in the past 500,000 years, and it probably isn't happening now.
Jul 17, 2019, 09:37 PM
AustinTatious
AustinTatious's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFesterpus
Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...te-diesel-cars

The Brussel Times reports that a new German study exposes how electric vehicles will hardly decrease CO2 emissions in Europe over the coming years, as the introduction of electric vehicles won't lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions from highway traffic.

According to the study directed by Christoph Buchal of the University of Cologne, published by the Ifo Institute in Munich last week, electric vehicles have "significantly higher CO2 emissions than diesel cars." That is due to the significant amount of energy used in the mining and processing of lithium, cobalt, and manganese, which are critical raw materials for the production of electric car batteries.

A battery pack for a Tesla Model 3 pollutes the climate with 11 to 15 tonnes of CO2. Each battery pack has a lifespan of approximately ten years and total mileage of 94,000, would mean 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometer (116 to 156 grams of CO2 per mile), Buchal said. Add to this the CO2 emissions of the electricity from powerplants that power such vehicles, and the actual Tesla emissions could be between 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometer (249 and 289 grams of CO2 per mile).

German researchers criticized the fact that EU legislation classifies electric cars as zero-emission cars; they call it a deception because electric cars, like the Model 3, with all the factors, included, produce more emissions than diesel vehicles by Mercedes.

They further wrote that the EU target of 59 grams of CO2 per kilometer by 2030 is "technically unrealistic."
Did they include all the emissions and environmental impact from harvesting,processing and transporting the oil to make diesel...

Or did they ignore all that to keep the diesel numbers low?
Jul 17, 2019, 09:41 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinTatious
Did they include all the emissions and environmental impact from harvesting,processing and transporting the oil to make diesel...

Or did they ignore all that to keep the diesel numbers low?
You can design a study to say whatever you want, and statistics are the key.
Jul 18, 2019, 06:32 AM
Registered User
The EU ordered a comparative study, the result is EV emit between 17% and 30% less carbon than ICs in Europe (this study also took into account the emissions from the productions of the car). This is with the current EU electric grid, but this grid will progress as Europe is on a path to produce less fossils energy.

I take this study as the most unbiased study I have seen. I don’t trust the studies funded by the automotive lobby as I don’t either trust those ordered by brainless ecologists that are not able to think logically (yeah there are many of them).

So what are my conclusion. The lower bound is quite small and doesn’t really justify a forced transition to EV the EU is doing, the upper bound is better. In the future The advantage of EV is going to be higher, but at the same time the IC technology can be better.
I think the EU should closely check what happens on the EV market. For instance I suppose the production emissions come from batteries so it makes sense that as batteries become bigger the production emmissions raise.
So EV are better, by an important margin 17%-30%, but they are definitely no 0 émission cars and a full switch to EV will not solve the carbon emissions issue. Big EV are probably worse than small IC in this area. When the EU attributes carbon taxes to cars, it should definitely take into account all the emissions and tax big EV the same way as small IC, because, they are as responsible for carbon emission.
This is what real ecologists should do, think logically about the problem and fight directly the problem. If you want to fight CO2, tax it no matter where it comes from.
Jul 18, 2019, 06:43 AM
KK4NOP
Mike Freas's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogizzard
The biggest problem with the study is the assumption that co2 controls climate.

There is no evidence that suggests that co2 controls climate, just assumptions. It hasn't happened in the past 500,000 years, and it probably isn't happening now.
Your opinion on Co2's impact on the climate has nothing to do with this discussion. Take it somewhere else.
Jul 18, 2019, 02:05 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by BE77 Pilot
My new electric bicycle is going to save the planet, just watch.

If you use it to go places that you would have ordinarily driven to.....................then it will most certainly help the situation
Jul 18, 2019, 09:57 PM
Free my speech
BACKEMFNRG's Avatar
Everyone I've asked with an electric or hybrid car says they suck in the winter in -20C weather. Global warming could help that problem though.
Jul 18, 2019, 11:41 PM
globemaster
nicoyenny's Avatar
Everyone i know that lives in places where winter gets to -20C, say that cold weather sucks.
Jul 18, 2019, 11:56 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Freas
Your opinion on Co2's impact on the climate has nothing to do with this discussion. Take it somewhere else.
No, it belongs here just as it belongs in every thread where this new age religion is being discussed. If it wasn't for the church of co2 there would have never been a study concluding ev cars are "worse for climate."
Jul 19, 2019, 12:06 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitounet
The EU ordered a comparative study, the result is EV emit between 17% and 30% less carbon than ICs in Europe (this study also took into account the emissions from the productions of the car). This is with the current EU electric grid, but this grid will progress as Europe is on a path to produce less fossils energy.

I take this study as the most unbiased study I have seen. I don’t trust the studies funded by the automotive lobby as I don’t either trust those ordered by brainless ecologists that are not able to think logically (yeah there are many of them).

So what are my conclusion. The lower bound is quite small and doesn’t really justify a forced transition to EV the EU is doing, the upper bound is better. In the future The advantage of EV is going to be higher, but at the same time the IC technology can be better.
I think the EU should closely check what happens on the EV market. For instance I suppose the production emissions come from batteries so it makes sense that as batteries become bigger the production emmissions raise.
So EV are better, by an important margin 17%-30%, but they are definitely no 0 émission cars and a full switch to EV will not solve the carbon emissions issue. Big EV are probably worse than small IC in this area. When the EU attributes carbon taxes to cars, it should definitely take into account all the emissions and tax big EV the same way as small IC, because, they are as responsible for carbon emission.
This is what real ecologists should do, think logically about the problem and fight directly the problem. If you want to fight CO2, tax it no matter where it comes from.

That's cute, but brainless ecologists at least know there is a difference between "global warming" and "climate change," because the two are not the same phenomena.

Carbon emissions are a perceived problem, while any ecologist could show you tangible environmental problems sitting right in front of you.

I assume you worry about your carbon because you don't have better things to worry about?

I spent the day with a journalist discussing one of the largest ecological disaster in modern times, and most people aren't even aware of it even though it is destroying an ecosystem larger than the country of france.
Jul 19, 2019, 02:50 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogizzard
That's cute, but brainless ecologists at least know there is a difference between "global warming" and "climate change," because the two are not the same phenomena.

Carbon emissions are a perceived problem, while any ecologist could show you tangible environmental problems sitting right in front of you.

I assume you worry about your carbon because you don't have better things to worry about?

I spent the day with a journalist discussing one of the largest ecological disaster in modern times, and most people aren't even aware of it even though it is destroying an ecosystem larger than the country of france.
No one questions in the ecologist community that carbon emissions should be fought.
In the world I live in, all the brainless ecologists have as main aim to reduce carbon emissions, but they tend to forget to make a wholistic evaluation between picking a solution. This led to the fact the EU had 70% of diesels because diesel was good to fight
I’ve been absent from the « global warming » thread for very long because I was fed up discussing on a toy forum with self declared specialists who are fighting a rear guard fight, spouting out old petroleum industry, contradict the consensus, and fully submit to the most ridiculous CT theory. I was waisting time on a thread that was leading no where, trying to fill a bottomless bucket with water. I won’t reply to your attempt to pick a fight here because as I said your starting position doesn’t make any sense to me I’ve better things to do.
Jul 19, 2019, 04:30 AM
Registered User
Sherlock's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogizzard
The biggest problem with the study is the assumption that co2 controls climate.

There is no evidence that suggests that co2 controls climate, just assumptions. It hasn't happened in the past 500,000 years, and it probably isn't happening now.
Lol, who said it “controls” the climate?
Jul 19, 2019, 05:04 AM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
Lol, who said it “controls” the climate?
It's just his own personal opinions. He likes to give the impression that he is some kind of 'scientist', but his stated mere 350 hours of "study" doesn't make him one.

And no genuine scientist is as sure of himself as he appears to be
Jul 19, 2019, 06:43 AM
KK4NOP
Mike Freas's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogizzard
No, it belongs here just as it belongs in every thread where this new age religion is being discussed. If it wasn't for the church of co2 there would have never been a study concluding ev cars are "worse for climate."
No, it doesn’t. Your opinion of a “new age religion” is just that.

Start your own thread if you want to discuss such things. Otherwise, this is a thread to discuss the claim that EV’s produce more Co2 than IC vehicles.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion new study finds no evidence of climate change Sweggershot Life, The Universe, and Politics 75 Jul 18, 2019 07:03 AM
Discussion This study says a lot more than just climate change ... logan5 Life, The Universe, and Politics 5 May 08, 2018 06:46 AM
Discussion Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climat RumRunner_1492 Life, The Universe, and Politics 66 Jul 11, 2017 11:56 AM
Discussion 20 yr study: Corp $ Affected Public's Views of Climate Change Tim Green Life, The Universe, and Politics 9 Nov 24, 2015 10:55 PM
Discussion New Study confirms, economy destroyed by Democrat policies rcjetpilot Life, The Universe, and Politics 98 Feb 11, 2013 07:16 PM