Are Electric Cars really so GREEN? The Ultimate Verdict

[@ArvinAsh]

There were several comments saying that I did not take into account the CO2 released in the pumping, refining and transportation of crude oil. While indeed, these processes emit CO2, we should remember that at least 60% of the electricity produced world wide uses fossil fuels, including coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases. So in order to be fair, the CO2 emitted in the extracting, refining and transportation of these fossil fuels must also be taken account for electricity generation. In my view this aspect is somewhat of a wash for both gasoline-powered and electric cars. And even without taking this into account, we can see that the conclusions of this video would still be valid, from the most conservative viewpoint.

[@CraftyF0X]

On the other side another minor inefficiency of the transport of electricity via the grid and other supporting infrastructure, with the projected necessary expansions (in case EVs quickly ramp up in numbers) and their associated emissions also worth a mention. This gets complicated fast because one can argue the extensions of the grid becomes important anyway, and just how much is due to ev adoption could bee debated. An other interesting question is how EVs lower direct air pollution in the cities air which can depend on factors like where, and what kind of power plant provides the charging. That being said it is fair and excellent video about how we should look at these problems from an objective point of view. One more thing to consider though, mass transport via electric trains are even more efficient.

[@epgui]

What did you mean when you said "there is some controversy over why the temperature is rising"? Anthropogenic climate change is a consensus scientific position, and any controversy is in the details, not in the broad strokes. This phrasing risks giving the public the wrong impression.

[@epgui]

PS.: That pie chart at 2:52 definitely does not illustrate a 9% share.

[@epgui]

Also: sure, used EV batteries are not designed to be easy to recycled, but don't you think it would be easier to refine or extract raw materials from a battery pack, rather than from much larger volumes of dirt and rock? This is the real interesting part you should do a video on, because it's a big opportunity in the grand scheme of things: think about the CO2 emissions involved in big mining projects, which you've factored into the environmental impact of EVs, and compare that with the energy requirements of battery recycling. Suddenly the big picture looks much brighter!

[@ArvinAsh]

@@epgui While I agree with your viewpoint, in the US the reason for the change is controversial, many people dispute the cause of climate change. I am acknowledging that fact for US viewers.

[@foley.elec.services]

I can't understand why the carbon footprint of the mining, transport, refining, transport, transport, and transport of diesel and petrol (gas), before it's even in the car, is never incorporated in these comparasions. The effects of fracking, drilling (and leaks), evaporation at the pump, are also seldom mentioned.

[@Shangori]

Mainly because it would make things look even worse. The same mining is needed to get the resources needed for cobalt. Often it is mined together with other things, like copper. Sadly, where there is cobalt, there often is also materials that are radio-active. Making the process, locally, even worse than 'normal' mining. This is why its mostly ignored. Because there isn't much difference, if not straight worse.

[@foley.elec.services]

@@Shangori cobalt is mined once (and most EVs now are using, or moving to LFP = no cobalt) for an EV. Petroleum is mined for every time someone fills the tank. That's a major difference

[@Shangori]

@@foley.elec.services Might as well bring up solid state batteries. Talking about the future is a bad idea here. Can talk about fusion all I want, if it isn't here yet, it isnt here yet. And seeing how rare cobalt is, it currently is not viable to mine 'just' for cobalt.

[@foley.elec.services]

@@Shangori dude, do a bit of research on LFP. It's only high performance (eg. plaid) that use cobalt and nickel chemistry. My Corsa-e and my wife's Dacia are both cobalt free LFP

[@RogerM88]

That would expose the real dirty reality about BEVs, and destroy the reason of BEV enforcement. The reality is, without investing into Nuclear Reactors, and more sustainable battery Cells Chemistry, this switch won't change much about total Carbon emissions.

[@tomeks190488]

A nice video! Still I have many concerns. Can an ev battery be regenerated? At what cost? What about disposing it? What about environmental issues and how much impact would it have if 90% of vehicles would be EV? How much CO2 does disposing battery emit comparing to scrapping a combustion engine car? What is an average lifespan of both solutions? What about economic costs? Most people can't afford EV at the moment anyway. The biggest problem I have this transition into ev is strongly influenced by politicians and the history teaches us it ends very badly most of the time. This also creates misallocation of resources in economy and waste of energy itself.

[@Memfys]

Great video, but as a Czech, I can't see how we could switch to more renewables in the near future. The sun just doesn't shine here that much, we don't have that many usable rivers like Scandinavia, and even wind isn't very viable because we don't have sea. The only option seems to be nuclear but we haven't even started to build new reactors (although one seems to be on the way).

[@Javaman21011]

couldn't you theoretically form treaties or unions with other countries to help fund their green energy revolution with the stipulation that you get some of that energy back to Czechia?

[@Tore_Lund]

The countries in Europe, who has favorable coastlines are putting up more wind power than they will be able to use themselves all the time, so don't worry it will average out, you'll get renewable power too, even if you have no wind turbines.

[@howdy832]

Then focus instead on sustainable infrastructure instead. How is the public transport in Czechia? Have you heard of the recent measures to pipe heat around neighboring buildings in industrial complexes to recycle some of the waste heat? adding on to that, is there any chance to push for more geothermal where you are? (I don't know the geology of the region)

[@Memfys]

@@howdy832 Thanks for the reply. I believe public transport here is more than okay, for example we have perhaps on of the densest railway networks in the world. Geothermal is a no go unfortunately, Czechia lies in a geologically very old part of Europe. Heat pumps are increasingly popular for people to power their homes but I haven't looked at the enviromental friendliness of it. Haven't heard about the heat recycling, will look into that. Cheers!

[@Memfys]

@@Javaman21011 Thanks for the reply. I'm no expert but I think that is exactly the way it goes in the EU. Countries like Germany, Scandinavia or France are betting on renewables in a big way, but I'm afraid it still won't be enough without nuclear energy. (Again, not an expert.) Getting rid of coal should be the priority, I think everyone agrees on that. Also, all in all, I think Czechia is a net exporter of energy thanks in big part to our nuclear facilities.

[@AmanBajaj-sh1nq]

Arvin: Could you please do a video on how electricity "Actually" travels in transmission lines and powers our devices and compare the classical theory to the actual quantum reality of electricity? thanks

[@AORD72]

"Travels in",, I remember a physics professor telling me that the majority of charge flows on the surface of the conductor not through it. If you want to increase current flow you use lots of strands instead of one wire, in doing so you increase the surface area.

[@Erik_Swiger]

We'd do better if we concentrated on using EV in their best capacity, which is short trips around town and such. They would have smaller batteries, shorter range, and require much less time and money to recharge. I really want a small, simple, cheap EV for around-town use. I have a second vehicle that can handle long highway trips and hauling stuff, and I suspect most people (at least in the US) have two vehicles anyway.

[@Mentaculus42]

Yes, go for the low hanging fruit and keep the battery pack smaller and lighter which will allow for a larger production of EVs while battery production is constrained. EV purest will never acknowledge the logic of plug-in hybrids for the next 15 years but even California IS allowing them after the general cutoff of ICEs in 2035.

[@deinauge7894]

you could do much better with a good public transport infrastructure in the city, instead of a second personal car....

[@Mentaculus42]

@@deinauge7894 That would seem to be the obvious solution but in reality it is complicated and a simplistic approach to this issue can backfire. I promoted a new line for the local transit district to serve the industry park district after 5 million sq ft of new industrial buildings were completed (Think Amazon, UPS, a number of regional hubs). The result was that the buses were effectively empty but have to run 16 hours a day. The California transit districts are massively subsidized by what is effectively public funds. Generally speaking, unless you are on the inside of a transit district, you have almost no understanding of the funding, cost and transportation efficiency of public transit. People think LA, Bay Area, but as an aggregate for public transportation in California it is very complicated and the actual numbers are “interesting”.

[@deinauge7894]

@@Mentaculus42 simplistic is everything that fits in a yt comment ;) but i am not thinking of la, but mid sized European cities. Personally i do almost everything by bike. should be a possibility for most people in cities. if your city does not really allow that due to streat design, than that's really bad

[@Mentaculus42]

@@deinauge7894 It should be recognized that small city in Europe is much more compact than what is the average in California. I have been in Europe a lot and public transportation is and order of magnitude more effective there than the “average” in California. I am constantly pushing on the local transit district with regard to “unmet needs” (which is the actual technical name). But the reality is that in the “average” California medium to small cities the transit districts have had to cut back on service due to regulatory requirements and funding. That is even with most of the fuel and electricity being covered by LCFS CREDITS (subsidies). AND if anyone thinks that the fares actually cover any significant expenses, since COVID the district is lucky to get 10% which is significantly below regulatory requirements (the state has been allowing the transit districts to break this requirement for now). What is particularly worrying is that the number of passengers has in general not reasonably recovered from pre COVID days for most general lines in the district that I get numbers from.

[@RadicalCaveman]

You calculated the carbon cost of producing gas versus electrical engines, but you didn't consider the fact that electric engines last longer and therefore fewer of them have to be manufactured.

[@frankdefeyter4893]

I agree with positive impact of EVs , but nevertheless I have 2 remarks concerning the magnitude of this positive impact of EVs 1) Assuming that passenger cars represent 8-12% of the emissions, I find it mutch too optimistic that all these cars can be electrified. Many (50%?) drive in countries with a very poor grid infrastructure, so electric cars are not an option. 2) By calculation the pollution caused by electricity production you use the energy production mix of that specific country. But if tomorrow electric cars increase the electricity consumption with 10% than we dont have automaticly 10% more green electricity, so the energy mix becomes more polluting. In this case the electric cars consume the green electricity of other users. Electric cars will be a more substantial improvement if we have a surplus of green electricity in the year 20??.

[@BigPapaMitchell]

The least green aspect of EVs is that they do nothing to offset car dependant infrastructure which causes more inefficiency than anything else. In some ways its worse because EVs all tend to be significantly heavier, which causes more road damage and will only get worse if we transition to EV trucks

[@mcpr5971]

I refuse to use public transportation until they find a way to keep criminals, mentally ill, and non-hygienic specimens OFF them. Oh yeah and random attacks shoving people onto the tracks (which seems to be kept quiet by the liberal media).

[@Mentaculus42]

The EV buses that are used in California public transit districts have a special exemption on weight limits due to the battery weight issues. I am familiar with a public transit district that pays the road maintenance department of that city additional extra funds to cover the additional damage to the city roads due to the extra EV bus weight. My local transit district had to repair their paving in the their transit hub after they started using EV buses. That being said, EV trucks in California can only be 2000 pounds heavier in gross weight than regular trucks. BUT, road damage due to weight is nonlinear and EV trucks have an average road weight that is higher which is important. Road damage due to EV car weight is basically irrelevant with regard to road damage.

[@jackm3720]

If EVs are greener, imagine a world without the sound of a V8 or 2jz.. that’s a world I don’t want to be a part of😂

[@johnsiegfried]

Arvin I have a Bolt EV. I live in CA and on a sunny day charge my car to a range of over 200 miles with solar panels on my roof. I drive for free. No emissions. Anyone in a reasonably sunny place can do this. (By the way, Na, sodium, can be used to make batteries instead of Li.)

[@Isclachau]

It’s not free you fool. 😂😂 Damn humans can be so stupid

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Nuclear proliferation is stupid. CO2 proliferation is stupid. Energy transportation is stupid. Old horse and cart thinking confuses every one. Horse meat was very cheap when the T model Ford was rolled out. Totally different technology and totally unforeseen by the commentators. 5times more electricity is needed in the no fossil fueled world. 5times bigger supply if Central power. 5times bigger national grid to DISPERSE the concentrated electrical energy. The grid is TEN, 10 times more expensive than the central power plants. And FIVE, 5 times more electricity. So 50 times bigger problem when you look at today's central electric power generation. And if the world goes to nuclear industries the USA military defence budgets will explode. Does anyone think ????????

[@chriswhite3692]

One thing that cannot be forgotten in any product is the cost of transport. Both money and pollutants emitted. Most EV components are sourced from all over the world (like anything, these days, but more heavily, it would seem). That, itself, emits a lot of CO2 since it is all via diesel engines.

[@handelsm]

Right, but shipping oil from the middle east for the lifetime of the car isn't cheap either.

[@chriswhite3692]

@@handelsm I agree. Hence why Biden killing domestic production and then begging the Saudis for oil is retarded.

[@sweiland75]

Numerous companies. like Tesla and Volvo, have EV transport trucks.

[@chriswhite3692]

@@sweiland75 What percentage do they make of the entire transport truck fleet in the US?

[@handelsm]

@@chriswhite3692 That didn't happen. Since Joe Biden took office, oil production has risen both on federal lands and on U.S. lands overall.

[@adbell3364]

Excellent video. Thank you!

[@mannusidd]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States This says 21% of electricity generated in USA is from coal. So I do not understand how only handful of countries are categorized as electricity generated from coal. (and a 38% from natural gas)

[@christophermullins7163]

Great topic. Most do not understand the true tradeoff.

[@gerbre1]

There is a CO2 comparison tool on the Transport & Environment website, where you can enter some parameters for the EV like country of battery production and country the car is running. It's possible to select China and Poland for these two parameters and the break even point is still below 100.000 km when compared with a diesel or gasoline car. The CO2 emission of the EV is still 40% lower over the live time of the car. When the car is running in Germany the emissions are 60% lower. In Europe esp. in Germany you can already find some recycling companies for Lithium batteries.

[@Shangori]

Seeing the subject here is about being green, this is not something I blame you for, even if you mention it, but something important is missing from this. Namely localization of pollutants. I think the main benefit of electric cars is on our air quality. Something that hurts millions a year. Even if you only generate power with coal, it is endlessly easier to only deal with that problem at one powerplant versus thousands of individual vehicles. I think that massively speaks in favor of EVs, even if you completely dismiss that climate change is caused by CO2 (as some still do). I agree that nuclear power is the best way forward to a greener future. And it endlessly saddens me that progress has been stifled for decades due to fear.

[@frankfernandez1415]

Great resource for unbiased information. However a detail was overlooked for tallying up the emissions of ICE vehicles. The pollution to produce the fuel was taken into account only in the EVs not on the ICE vehicles. Please recalculate the emissions of ICE vehicles with the emissions produced by their fuel source as you did for EVs. It’s only fair you do so.

[@antea9055]

Pleas add earths natural co2 production to the human part and calculate the difference between ev and normal vehicles in relation to that. That percentage difference will be negligible!!

[@kiamtey]

Oil is already create political problems

[@pbrigham]

You forgot the maintenance, thousands of mechanical parts that have to be produced for a motor engine, oil, oli filters, breaks etc.( Evs use regenerated break mainly) is a hole polluting industry that exist only for maintenance of a petrol cars.

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes, I did not get into this in detail, other than mentioning that EVs are mechanically simpler. So let me take this opportunity to point out the complexity of components necessary to support the internal combustion engine in a car, that would not be present in an EV: 1) Water coolant system for engine temp control 2) Exhaust system for exhaust gases 3) Electronic Ignition system 4) Fuel storage and delivery system (fuel pump, fuel line, or fuel tank, fuel injection system) 5) Sound deadening (muffler) system 6) Gas scrubber systems (catalytic converter) All these components take resources to manufacture and maintain, which would be eliminated in EVs.

[@pbrigham]

@@ArvinAsh Is thousands and thousands of parts and fluids, dealerships make more money during the life of the veicule in maintenance than in the car itself, obvious working hours is a big factor, but even so, all this parts is another polluting industry by itself.

[@cyborgamish]

​@@ArvinAsh Sounds almost like a chatGPT list answer. haha. Which is totally fine, as it make sense. The 6th point mention “catalytic converters”, which contain elements such as palladium, rhodium and platinum, whose mining impact could be the subject of an entire video, as it's probably not better than cobalt extraction that you mentioned in this video

[@migsvensurfing6310]

@@ArvinAsh EVs have a battery cooling/heating system and need energy from the battery to heat/cool the cabin. Great video. Thanks.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@migsvensurfing6310 That's a sealed system.

[@RGF19651]

Of course, one must also take into account the fact that as more and more EV’s come into use, more and more charging stations must also be manufactured, which will also cause more CO2 to be released. Secondly, the current (no pun) electrical grid in the US, and I would think in other countries cannot handle the increased demand for power if the majority of vehicles become EV’s. This will also need to be replaced (i. e. manufactured) as well, releasing more greenhouse gases. The EV solution cannot take place overnight. It will take years, if not decades.

[@cesarb714]

No politics, no BS and very thorough. You’re awesome man! Great video.

[@jimdandy9118]

Just 100% wrong. C02 does not trap heat, it’s a very heavy gas that sits at the surface. It’s been way hotter in the past, look up Medieval Warming period. The Greenland Ice cores show we are in normal temp ranges. All BS.

[@ss-th9pf]

Climate change is a lie

[@okman9684]

​@giftokoh7153thats for cobalt and evs don't use cobalt niw

[@KDawg5000]

At 5:38, the chart shows ~200g/km of CO2 for a gas car. However, it seems they never account for the drilling for oil, the refinement process, and the transportation. If we are going to factor in every detail regarding electricity generation, then we need to do the same for gasoline, comparing apples to apples, not just tail-pipe emissions.

[@ArvinAsh]

Oil products including diesel is used extensively to produce electricity, so it is not always a useful figure to use. In the US, natural gas is used extensively to produce electricity. This also has a CO2 footprint. The main takeaway should be that EVs are greener long term. Any CO2 saved from producing fossil fuels would be icing on the cake.

[@KDawg5000]

@@ArvinAsh My point was, when these comparisons are made, *everything* should be taken into account. Otherwise how do we have a true contrast? The electricity used to refine one gallon of gasoline will propel an EV further than that gallon of gasoline will a gas car. So the gas car is actually creating CO2 from burning the fuel, and also from the electricity the refining process requires, and several other sources of CO2 to maintain the gasoline supply. Petroleum is used very little to produce electricity, yet it is used exclusively to propel gas cars (as well as for oil changes).

[@mr.alkenly889]

its an alright video, he left out a number of factors, such as what about hybrid cars, what about having enough resources to even replace all of those vehicles, what about since EVs tend to be heavier, the wear and tear they cause on roads, what about other solutions such as an increase in public transport as an option. what about making cities more bike and ebike friendly. making things walkable. I feel like changing every vehicle to an EV is an extreme scenario, that should be considered as a last result. as we could easily do other things with the infrastructure that we already have available to significantly reduce out pollution output to reasonable levels. For me I would honestly love to take the bus everywhere, however, in the US buses tend to not have enough routes, or a large bus station that you can go to. then when it comes to greyhounds and longer bus transit, it is less expensive to drive a car than it is to take a bus. With that price the time of travel tends to be 4 to 5 times as long, making a 2 hour trip into a 8 hour endeavor. Making public transport more of an option, or just making sidewalks so that it isn't dangerous to walk outside is a much much cheaper and more effective way to reduce emissions than trying to replace 10s of millions of cars. I wish you went into more detail about other alternatives than just 'oh an ev is better that's what you should look to get in the future'. cause again road damage such as potholes are caused by heavy vehicles traveling across them, so increasing the average weight of a car by several tons will significantly increase road damage causing entire roads to need to be replaced much more often then the current 30ish years. with that I believe hybrid cars are an excellent remedy for this issues, as some hybrids are bordering on 50 miles a gallon, and their efficiency has only been increasing. oh and how could I forget the increase to the electric grid due to so many more people owning evs that's a whole another issue. sorry for the rant, i would just rather not have to drive at all, heck for the summer i was driving 17 miles round trip per day to get to work. I just used an ebike, which has much less impact on the environment.

[@eubenhadd462]

Aside from greenhouse gases, not being energy dependent upon countries who aren't very friendly is a huge bonus. We spend a trillion dollars +/- per year on defense to protect ourselves from countries building militaries with fossil fuel money or being forced to deal with those with horrific human rights records.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

Seems to me that we could save just as much CO2 at vastly less cost by simply making cars smaller and lighter and making tax advantages for buying smaller cars. Small hybrid cars with relatively small batteries could be a good option overall, most journeys are quite short. Electric only vehicles seem to be a dead loss for the mass market, they're simply far too expensive and there's no sign whatsoever of the prices coming down, if anything they're going up.

[@javelinXH992]

It’s a bit complicated. It depends on the car (weight and battery size), the country (for its national source of electricity - France is all nuclear and renewable for example while Poland is mostly coal) and the drivers use case. I drive a relatively small EV and do about 70 miles per day. It works perfectly for me and beats the diesel I had before ( which I loved! ). I ‘m happy I made the switch, but I had to do a lot of homework and cost analysis to see if it was the right choice for me. At work, I got the job of assessing our field teams vehicle use, who often drive 3000 miles a month and over 300 miles per day. Factoring all things the company was interested in (CO2, practicality, cost, etc), the answer was to stay with diesel for at least another two years. Changes are always coming and I’ll be rerunning the analysis every year. One day, electric will probably win, but for their use, not yet. We live in a hybrid (sorry!) time for cars. The right answer for each person right now could be petrol, diesel, hybrid or full electric. As I said at the start, it’s complicated!😊

[@mr88cet]

Great topic and video! 5:14 - It’s worth pointing out that this 75-85% number includes losses charging and discharging the battery. Just the motors themselves are on the order of 90% efficient. 6:45 - Actually, although lithium ions are what transfer charge between the electrodes, lithium batteries are only around 7-8% lithium. Other elements, like cobalt and nickel, are bigger concerns. Also, the most common lithium-mining method is not an extremely energy-intensive process, but it is a very water-consuming process. It’s also worth pointing out that most new battery-manufacturing plants are designed to run on renewable energy, so that part of the process is less carbon-intensive. 9:25 - Indeed! Most people don’t fully grasp just how inefficient a space- and weight-constrained internal-combustion engine is, especially when rarely allowed to run under optimum RPM and temperature conditions in general. That’s one of several ways that hybrid vehicles reduce fuel consumption, BTW: They endeavor to shut off the engine entirely, except when it can operate at close to optimum conditions.

[@danieloberhofer9035]

Just commenting to give the above comment a little more visibility, because these are all very important aspects.

[@mr88cet]

@@danieloberhofer9035 thanks!

[@PrivateSi]

EVs are awful 'fake greenery' gone mad.. Lib-Con forced mass sales scam - one of far too many... They made the time we were all MASS-FORCED to 'upgrade' our light bulbs to HIGHLY POISONOUS flourescant, 'long life' bulbs that were half as bright after one year, and were half as bright in the first place compared to incandescent light bulbs that handily heated the room a bit too.. CRAZY-NASTY FAKE GREEN BULLSHIT... -- Petrol's ease and power to weight ratio cannot be beaten. CO2 emissions should NOT be regulated but all vehicles and factories should be made to only emit (near enough) PURE CO2, O2 and H2O only.. a mostly Iron, plastic and carbs economy is much easier to recycle and manage than one reliant on ever rarer, evermore exotic, difficult to produce materials.. Your Fake Green 'sustainable energy profits' scams go hand in hand with the Fake Green hyper-junk, mega-polluting, land-filling, inefficient, EV Revolution.. Unaffordable cars for The Masses, power and heat.. NEO C*NTZ of the Internazti Neo World Order(s)..

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

It does not take into account the efficiency loss in the production AND the transmission of the electricity. That number is isolated to the vehicle only once the electricity is in the vehicle.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@The1stDukeDroklar OK, let's do that. And Consider the grid energy used to refine fossil fuel. (It's about the same amount used to either move an EV a set distance, or refine fuel to move an equivalent ICE vehicle the same distance. The "Electricity cost" is equal when the EV had a "full battery" and the ICE beside it has fuel for the equivalent range. The difference? The moment you move those vehicles, the EV is "Paid for" in terms of the energy AND pollution. The ICE vehicle moving is ALL pollution as the fuel burns. . It's not even close

[@PhilipMurphyExtra]

Effective public transport is not a thing in the UK unfortunately unless you in London.

[@musicfuhrer]

Thank you for this interesting, and informative video. But it is a shame that you couldn't investigate the costs of battery disposal and recycling. If electric vehicle manufacturers like Tesla had to directly pay the costs of battery disposal their profits might not be so huge, and their share price so high. But I'm betting the cost of the clean up will be left to the taxpayer. As usual profits are privatised, losses socialized and the environment loses again so that billionaires can boast about how rich and clever they are.

[@angeltcmusic1]

Wonderful presentation. I hope this enlighten many people that are usually EV enthusiast and missing always the whole picture just out of pure ignorance. That EV vehicles are the future is highly questionable despite forecasted evolution of the EV technology. Today, Implementing EV vehicles and 2050 agenda (will never happen) is just a question of political and financial interest, nothing to do with environmental concerns. Which politicians do not care about. From a technological standpoint of view, my bet would be hydrogen or fusion energy by 2100 so long politicians allow it. We are nowhere close.

[@drmcallis]

Now add in the cost in CO2 for the production of gasoline/diesel, something totally ignored in your discussion. If the costs for the production of the materials for the batteries is important to track as is the costs involved in producing the electricity, why not the costs involved in the extraction, shipping, and refinement of the fuels and then the delivery thereof? I think you'll find the equation shifts somewhat if you do not ignore this huge cost...

[@BrazzaB1]

'Only 5% of electric car batteries are recycled'. Yes, this is true, but as you say, the rest is used for second life batteries. None are being put in landfill - they are too valuable! Also, the CO2 cost of the batteries when widespread recycling is implemented will come down significantly as the raw materials will not be mines and refined.

[@awesomedavid2012]

None for now. But if all of the cars in the world were electric now, how many batteries would simply be disposed of?

[@BrazzaB1]

@@awesomedavid2012 None. 95% of the battery can be reused, so once the electric vehicle numbers have stabilised, you will not need to dig up any minerals

[@foley.elec.services]

@@awesomedavid2012 do you throw away electrical cables at the end of life ? No ! Why ?..because someone will buy that scrap from you, process it, and resell it...........just like a lithium-ion pack

[@thewatcher5822]

Actually car batteries are being recycled. The 95% comes from general battery waste, like phones, laptops, power tolls etc. EV's are actually helping to solve the problem, making recycling of all batteries viable.

[@Nasiraliparay]

In india🇮🇳 charging points for electrical cars🚗🚗 run on generators which uses fuel ⛽⛽⛽..... Epic. WTF green energy. 😂😂😂💚

[@AORD72]

In India you have lots of solar radiation. If your home had solar panels and you had an EV with vehicle to grid you could become energy independent.

[@ilove2learn783]

Cars are not the problem. Public transportation is.

[@455rocket8]

Overall I thought this was a great video. However, a few major omissions were made in your calculation of the efficiency of hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. Considerable non-green energy is spent in crude oil extraction, distribution, and in crude oil cracking and refinement. In additional non-green energy in the distribution of these fuels to gas stations (not to mention the costs of wars etc. to maintain the hydrocarbon supply). Therefore I believe that the relative environmental damage should be moved more towards the internal combustion powered vehicle. Phil P.

[@ArvinAsh]

You have to remember that oil derivatives, like diesel are used extensively throughout the world to produce electricity, so it is a wash in many geographies. But the main takeaway should be that even if you don't take this into account, EVs are better over their lifetime. Any extra CO2 savings is icing on the cake.

[@mattmcc72]

Why is the graph @2:53 so miss-leading? Is there a reason you used the 1.4% graph from the next item instead of the much different 9% your talking about at this point?

[@zoch9797]

Probably because the graph is not accurate for either 9% nor 1.4%

[@mattmcc72]

@@zoch9797 Yeah. Not so much. No I'm not going to take the time to measures the angles from a screenshot of such a lazy video. (And yes, this was just the first part of the lazy reporting I spotted in this video.) But I did go to an online pie chart generator. 1.4% roughly matches what we see here. 9% it's not even close. So bad editing, I'm guessing farmed out. But the lazy reporting makes me think Shell is the sponsor.

[@the__Ultraviolet]

Shouldn't we take into account the process to create fuel for the powerplants and for the combustion engine. And also the infrastructure to distribute it for people to be able to get it? (Gas stations, fuel deriving from oil, charging stations, etc)

[@fredhawken1112]

I agree and my view is If you scale that one percent ev's worldwide to 50 or 75 percent or so, all the grids in the world need to be fortified to deliver the power needed to charge al those ev's as fast as possible. This will take A LOT of copper for example. Powerplants need to be built (hopefully nuclear) to supply for the increased demand of raw electricity and the people who build all that infrastructure need to be fed. Extra factories for billions of batteries need to be built and new mines need to opened for the resources for those batteries and infrastructure changes. Charging stations need to be built everywhere and in theory you would need more of them because it takes longer for an electric car to fill and you drive less km with a full battery compared to a full tank. And i probably missed some more yet unknown issues we need to take into account. In my personal opinion the EV remains a technical utopia if we do not manage to control the total energy balance and conversion efficiency. The energy source/storage with the highest conversion efficiency (as you may know, energy is always converted, never 'won' or 'lost') and the highest energy density (joules/kg) will always win in the long run, we only need to find and combine the best ones, like nuclear ( 1 kg of uranium replaces about 1000 kg of coal i think) for electricity generation.

[@james3876]

@@fredhawken1112 All good points, and for reasons like those I don't think the future of electricity management will look anything like the current system does now. When petrol took over from the horse and buggy, there were alot of projections for future needs based on what horse and buggy travel required. Same stuff is happening now. Safe to guess however that a complete replacement of petrol vehicles won't happen soon. Petrol and electric vehicles both thrive economically under different conditions, so alot of people will probably end up with one of each. Gas or diesel as a backup/for long trips, and electric for around town use. Further speculation might suggest solar panels will become a standard feature on electric vehicles offsetting several miles of demand per day(the ultra efficient three-wheeler in California is rated at 20 miles/day from onboard solar for example). Solar Panel technology is rapidly improving as well, it's getting cheaper and simpler to tie solar power harvesting into homes. The benefits will only become more notable and economical as electricity prices go up(seems a safe bet they will). In many rural locations going offgrid vs connecting to utilities for a new home build is already a cheaper option, and adding in a few panels to support a car(batteries are the expensive part of solar implementation) is a negligible expense. Especially with a petrol backup, an electric car can double as a booster to offgrid energy stability(when it rains a week straight for example.) Electric cars are a much younger technology than ICE vehicles. There's alot of growing room. Different locations will be better suited for different ratios of each as well(imagine living in a place where the average temperature is negative with anything BUT an ICE vehicle, not happening). In conclusion I'd offer that electric vehicle adoption won't look like we might straight-forwardly project it will, ICE vehicles will remain a mainstream choice of travel working synergistically with electric vehicles, and the rapid exploration and improvement of complimentary electrical systems will have a multiplicative effect on the speed at which these systems get adopted.

[@reiniernn9071]

@@fredhawken1112 We need 1 KWH for 5 to 6 km driving with an EV, Average 10500 miles (17000 km). We need LESS than 3000 kwh/year for this. When you buy a new desktop (including monitor, printer, router for internet etc) it will use (most people keep there computer running) 7*24 350-500 watts of energy , most depending on the graphics card. That thing also uses 3000kwh/year taking 350 watts consumption. And you are telling me that the grid cannot support EV's but can support PC's? EV's can be charged during the night time....when other demands are low. This means that there cannot be a grid issue with EV's as reason.

[@jansoltan9519]

1 kg of Uranium is ~3000 TONS of coal, so 3 million times more energy dense

[@rlop1806]

I guess you're okay with slaves collecting cobalt and other elements to get batteries.....last I checked forests love CO2 and deforestation increases this number

You're just a dunce, stop wasting real people's time with your tragic ignorance.

[@devinfaux6987]

Another important point of comparison when it comes to CO2 produced during operation is between electric automobiles and other modes of transportation. Automobiles are, regardless of their motive power type, a much less efficient form of transport than almost any form of mass transit. They expend a lot of energy just to move the vehicle, which can only ever carry a handful of passengers and frequently carries just the driver, and they occupy a relatively large physical volume of space on the road. A larger mass transit vehicle -- like a bus -- uses less energy *and* a smaller volume of road occupied per passenger per mile/km. On top of that, rubber-wheeled vehicles on asphalt roads are inherently much less energy-efficient than metal-wheel vehicles on metal rails: the former has a lot more rolling resistance just to move. You can also chain railed vehicles together much more easily, amplifying the energy expended per passenger per mile/km advantage even further. All these advantages and disadvantages add up and multiply one another. At a certain scale, and depending on the power source used to charge the EVs, a fleet of cutting-edge EVs becomes more polluting than a 100-year-old coal-fired steam locomotive pulling enough passenger cars to move the same quantity of people over the same distance in the same time. EVs alone aren't going to solve climate change. We need mass public transit, and we need it on an epic scale in a hurry. TL;DR: car bad train good

[@rickde0602]

Nope. NOT " better for environment".🤤 What most people fail to understand and acknowledge are the facts that power for pure EV'S, when you plug them I, MUST COME FROM SOMEWHERE! No magical thinking, or twisted logic can keep a POWER STATION from charging your car😲. The energy MUST come from a nuclear power source, a coal power source, a natural gas power source, an oil power source, and so on. Owning an EV just makes you feel better. You still produce emissions SOMEWHERE.

[@mroutcast8515]

Batteries are the problem - they're just too expensive to recycle (x10 times more than making one from fresh materials). Each car has around 500kg of batteries. Just freaking ask yourself - when will they they put this toxic e-waste once most people go electric? There will be millions of such battery packs going out of service each year... And NO, they will not recycle, because EVs are already about 80-100% more expensive than equivalent petrol car model (say VW Golf petrol is 30k euro, then EV Golf is near 60k euro). Batter pack costs around 12-15k euro, so if they were to recycle batteries - car cost would from 60k euro up to around 150-200k euro. Who on freaking earth would buy "budget" cars at such prices? This whole EV crap is one massive utopia - not to mention electricity shortages and skyrocketing price in EU (due to war in Ukraine and lack of Putin's gas which was used to fuel many power plants here). So EU barely makes with electricity demands already, imagine everyone going EV - which would roughly double the electricity demand on everyone owning EV. Also - read about minors labor in Afrika digging your damn EV battery materials. Lastly - majority of world's population will never be able to afford EV and EV longevity is far shorter (especially in cold climates) - so not like buying 10 year old car will be an option as that's basically end of the road for EVs battery pack (and replacement is 12-15k euro).

[@BlueFrenzy]

Cars cannot be the future. In Europe probably scooters are going to take the role of cars in the future. - Less battery required, making it affordable - 90% of the energy to move a car is spent in the car itself because it's 90% of the weight. This is something I don't see people talking about enough. - Removing cars from the streets would make scooters and bikes safe.

[@ralanham76]

Great overview 👍 Also at 8:20 the EV break’s even slightly sooner since would be polluting more those 25,000 km.

[@Martinko_Pcik]

Very nicely done. I just don't understand why only few countries were picked to have electricity made largely from fossils. There are many more. The map should actually look reversed. Mentioning just developed countries, Japan makes 80% from Australian ! coal. Russia is not green, nor few US states.

[@erikliljenwall8185]

Transportation accounts for 29% of all greenhouse gas emissions. That's all transportation, including air travel, ships, rail, trucks, and cars. Even if everyone on earth switched to an EV right now (assuming the charging infrastructure was in place, and all the electricity came from "green" sources, and ignoring the resources needed to manufacture billions of EVs) the effect would be only on a portion of that 29% of greenhouse gasses. The push for EVs is a distraction. EVs aren't the answer.

[@mr88cet]

I personally think that the best reason to buy battery-electric cars is simply that _they are just better cars_ ! They’re more responsive, quieter, faster-accelerating, and smoother in every sense. They also require a lot less maintenance. If you can charge at home, they’re more convenient to fuel up: 5 seconds to plug in at night (once you get it all set up), and five seconds to unplug in the morning! Yes, road trips are more involved, but most people only take a 3-4 road trips per year. Most EVs’ GOS navigation systems include navigation through DC fast-charging stations, which are increasingly common. For most people, they’re also cheaper per mile, although that varies a lot by locale. They keep smoke out of residential and pedestrian -intensive areas.

[@HailAnts]

Electric cars are a fad. Nearly every utility uses coal or oil to generate electricity, so they save nothing. Yes I know about economies of scale and local pollution etc. but they don't really matter. And until they can reach the range and fast refueling times (five minutes or less) of gas cars they won't be practical. Just remember the ratio of 20 to 1. In order to equal the potential energy of one pound of gasoline you need 20 pounds of batteries. Gasoline weights six pounds per gallon, an average car's tank holds at least 15 gallons, so that's 90 pounds of gasoline. Which equals 1800 lbs of battery. For only a small to medium car. That's nearly 2000 lbs of dead weight that the car must carry around all the time, it's entire life. And after 8-10 years it must be completely replaced at a cost of thousands of dollars. Battery technology may improve a little, but the laws of chemistry show that they aren't going to improve much more than that. Neither will recharging times. And commercial vehicles can't even consider electricity as a practical fuel source at those rates. So as this generation of EVs ages out consumers will be shocked to discover that because of the cost of replacement batteries their already expensive when new electric car is now worth nothing because of its dead battery (and because of this there will never be a viable used EV market) middle class owners will abandon EVs in droves. They will be remembered as a pretentious toy for the rich, which is exactly what they are..

[@winstonh5905]

Great work Arvin - I've read quite few articles on this topic (overall efficiency and benefit of EVs in contrast to ICE-based vehicles) and your video is _exceedingly_ well done. This topic is very complex, with myriad facets and you did it justice. I also appreciate the neutral tone you took focusing on just the facts and considerations. Great job, again!

[@Isclachau]

Even the people making the EV’s are shaking their heads in disbelief as to why Politicians are pretending they are green. They should of kept with cleaner emissions from ICE cars.

[@TounInTheHole]

I live in Czechia :( ... but i do not have a car :)

[@ertreri]

Even if different people and country drive differents amount per year, but perhaps a better statistic is what is the average life time of a car in KM? And i would say almost every car produced at least is drive up to 100 thousand kms if not more.

[@kemico1272]

Don't forget the emissions that occur from processing oil into gasoline, and if you want to be technical, the emissions from wars fought over control of oil producing countries such as Iraq.

[@brainnetworks]

Forgot a very important step - you have to clear the forests to mine lithium. Then leave a toxic disaster where nothing grows after it has been mined. Then calculate impact on water and environment from mining lithium.

[@AkbarAli-lc7vy]

Sir plz explain ultraviolet catastrophy and vaccum catastrophy

[@ArvinAsh]

See this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIqZen5mhMd3j7c

[@uninspired3583]

I'm not a car guy. Selfishly, a car with fewer moving parts and less maintenance headaches has a lot of appeal.

[@markkuelo5191]

How much manufacturing the combustion engine vehicle causes CO2-emission ? Should we look at the manufacturing CO2 differences between EV and combustion engine alternatives also ? I assume that EV causes more CO2-emissions => We will reach the point where we have reached the manufacturing CO2-difference (CO2_EV - CO2_combustion) first. This is the point where EV becomes better choice than combustion engine vehicle, right ?. And later we will reach the point where all manufacturing CO2-stuff are "compensated".

[@ArvinAsh]

I showed that in the video, about 7 tons of CO2 for gas car vs 10 tons for EVs.

[@andreask.2675]

Do the CO2 numbers mentioned for gas powered cars also reflect the energy which is required to generate the fuel? Like, getting it out of the ground, cracking (not to be confused with fracking), refining and transportation?

[@storytimewithunclekumaran5004]

R U new ?

[@hehehahahmhmhm]

in my country it takes about 1 barrel of oil to extract 20.

[@andreask.2675]

@@hehehahahmhmhm But that does not include cracking and refining, which both are very energy intensive, right?

[@TorbenMougaard26]

Denmark today: The wind is blowing and 124% green energy has been produced.. Most days it is windy in Denmark. And the energy is produced by wind turbines. In the news in Denmark, when presenting the weather, also mention the day green energy production. We have Europe's cheapest electricity after Iceland.

[@mymonster156]

In Denmark people ride bicycles. In America people drive huge F150's to the corner store. They won't wear masks because it damages their brains. What would a bicycle do?

[@TorbenMougaard26]

@@mymonster156 Yes, we are responsible people .. peace .. Go Vikings

[@TorbenMougaard26]

@@mymonster156 A bicycle can damage your brain . We wear helmets , like Vikings do . And we always have a tailwind on the cycle path . THAT´S BY LAW

[@mymonster156]

@@TorbenMougaard26.. haha, I forgot!

[@apostolakisl]

The issue is not the electric car, it is electrical generation. Gasoline vehicle will always emit CO2, electric cars could be zero but for the generation. All steps of producing a car could be powered by zero emission power and that simply isn't the case for gas. There are synthetic fuels that work in ICE, but what an inefficient cludge these are to produce. Plus, charging cars at night stands to balance grid demand which is a good thing for overall efficiency per unit energy

[@ArvinAsh]

Good points.

[@einzelgalger52223]

When I was in my Elementary school days, I learned that plants take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. Why isn't planting more trees and plants a viable solution to counter the carbon dioxide emissions causing climate change?

[@ArvinAsh]

It will help solve the problem to some degree. The problem we have currently is that we are not only producing an overabundance of carbon, but the natural sinks for this excess carbon, like trees, are also being destroyed faster than ever.

[@peters972]

It’s a bit of a negative argument, since if you do nothing you certainly can not improve. If you do adopt EV’s, eventually all sources can become green, therefore you have moved forward.

[@ArvinAsh]

Indeed. Well put.

[@geirthieussbimkravahl]

If I had to choose between mining for lithium, or recycling used lithium battery cells, I'll bet recycling used lithium cells has to be close to an order of magnitude easier than mining for fresh lithium.

[@Barnardrab]

What if we manufactured electric cars with nuclear fusion and charged their batteries with that energy? Speaking of, will fusion make fission obsolete?

[@ArvinAsh]

Fusion is still decades away, but yes, if we can figure out a way to make sustainable net positive fusion energy on a large scale economically, it would indeed make fission and just about every other fuel source obsolete.

[@jamesrobinson9176]

Require all commercial buildings to be better insulated, no more naked glass and steel

[@LesCish]

I really wish fuel cells caught on nationwide. There are other downsides to EVs- price, fires, and weight.

[@thewatcher5822]

There is a reason fuel cells never took off. They make no sense.

[@agnijusbotyrius4317]

From a futuristic point of view, there is no doubt that EV come out victorious. Electricity is much more versatile after its been produced. Imagine the emissions released just from transporting the fuel to the petrol/gas stations.

[@bedaaribam5042]

I always wanted to have an electric car and help fight against climate change. But learning India produces electricity mostly from coal is a real slap in the face.

[@ArvinAsh]

It is likely to change over the next couple of decades, but yes, today it is mostly coal.

[@Siderite]

So is there no way to turn gasoline into electricity in a more efficient way?

[@tjkaz5419]

Would love to know the financial side of this. How much would it cost to charge a EV for 15k miles> to break even with the environmental impact? How much would it cost in petrol to drive 15k miles. What if....they used EV's to manufacture and deliver the petrol ....hmm

[@ArvinAsh]

Currently electricity cost per km is much cheaper than gasoline. You can look it up for your area.

[@arthurbister8894]

Thanks for. Converting lbs to kg. I did not go to school.

[@tommyr7105]

One thing is overlooked here. As demand for EVs reaches parity with IC vehicles, the demand for electricity will sky rocket and unless there's a giant shift towards cleaner energy production then it's moot. There's a whole host of other problems not related to emissions like infrastructure for charging, poor range and reduce performance in colder climates where a higher demand is placed on the battery from tempreture and additional power draw for ancillaries. I don't hate the EV revolution. But it's been vastly oversold. Nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to the world's energy problems but its a long way off.

[@ArvinAsh]

I don't disagree with that assessment. Nuclear is probably not going to be a savior because, at least in the U.S., nuclear power plants take 10-20 years to get approved and built. However, even in the worst case scenarios, natural gas-fired, and diesel-fired power plants could be built fairly inexpensively and quickly. And these would still be much greener than ICE cars.

[@tommyr7105]

@@ArvinAsh I'm honoured Arvin!. Really enjoy your content and the community engagement!. Thanks!.

[@Well_Earned_Siesta]

You neglected to note that to produce 1 gallon of gasoline (petrol), it’s takes an *additional* 1.2 gallons in the extraction, refining, and shipping of oil/gas/petrol. So you should at least double all of the ICE emission numbers. Further, the source of power for EV (for grid powered) is getting cleaner every day and will eventually be 100% generated from renewables and other clean technologies, all over the world. EVs also require far less maintenance since they have roughly 1/10th of the moving parts that ICE cars have.

[@danlake7970]

He ignores many of the negatives in the internal combustion engine side of the comparison with electric vehicles. I don't know if he's being deliberately misleading as is usually the case with these comparisons or just didn't learn enough about the topic before making the video.

[@yansakovich]

But it looks like fuel preparation for electricity production is also not taken into account. So, both should be doubled, and the conclusion would be around the same. The fact that electricity generation becomes cleaner is mentioned in this video.

[@jamesknapp64]

The point is often that 1.2 gallons is also used by the power plants. And if EVs are powered by Green sources then that is power taken from the grid, thus power of homes and buisnesses thus a net wash on overall power consumption emissions.

[@baarni]

The one thing you didn’t mention Arvin and that is that evs relocate the harmful emissions away from cities where most of us live and where most of the fossil fuel related health problems occur… So there are other benefits other than the carbon footprint…

[@nallemanstankarochfunderin5962]

ALWAYS!!!! In every tv program or video on KZbin where the issue of Co2 produced from EV’s are looked at, compared to petrol or diesel, one thing is NEVER EVER looked at. How much Co2 is produced from producing the oil that’s used to make the petrol or diesel, and how much Co2 is produced from refining the oil…???? And how much Co2 is produced by those gigantic tankers hauling the oil and petroleum around the world? You can not come here and say that electric vehicles and gasoline vehicles are almost similarly big polluters, when you will not look at the whole picture.

[@Pegaroo_]

13:20 why would anyone put them in land fill? Even after the battery has degraded enough that it's no longer got enough capacity that it's not useful in a EV that can still be used as grid storage as it doesn't matter about the capacity to weigh ratio if it's not moving anywhere

[@ArvinAsh]

Main reason is cost. Currently, it's more costly to recycle them than to create new batteries. Existing batteries would need to become more recycle-friendly, and recycling would need to be more widespread.

[@Pegaroo_]

@@ArvinAsh My point is that they don't need to be recycled after the useful life as a EV battery because they are still fully functional, they just don't have the same capacity as they used to but they still store energy There is no need for any EV battery to ever go to landfill kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKLPgJ-ngMSiqpo

[@AK-ny5bz]

Lithium price has already increased approximately 4 times in alag 3-4 years.

[@handelsm]

So has oil.

[@nikolaskallianiotis8622]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but you didn't mention at all the resources needed and emission produced in order to manufacture "renewables" and what's the break-even point for these sources. Then you should add up these to the EV and then tell us the final break-even point (if achievable) for EVs. You didn't mention also that renewables are stochastic sources of energy which is the main and biggest problem. Sun doesn't always shinning and wind doesn't always blowing and especially not when you need them. The battery life expectancy can't be 200.000 km (or 10-15 years) in any case except if you are willing to have your EV charged every 100km-200Km because the battery total capacity is less than 70% of the initial. Would you do the same with your phone or replacing the battery with a new one ? You didn't mention the cost of replacing an EV battery and how much resources/emissions needed for a new battery. You didn't mention that batteries don't always perform the same because their chemistry is affected by various environmental and operational factors like temperature, manufacturing defects, charging/discharging rates, aging e.t.c. You also didn't mention that there is a respectable scientific community out there who doesn't agree that fossil fuels is the main cause of climate change and that climate has repeatable patterns based on the Sun's activity. These are not allegations but fact based science.

[@vinnyc7613]

as stated b4 in the comments, you did not take the carbon footprint that it takes to get the actual processed fuel to the pumps, .......are u being funded by the petro companies? cmon arvin, u can do better than this

[@ArvinAsh]

Did you see the whole video? Correct that oil production CO2 footprint was not taken into account. Some of this is going to be a wash because the same oil derivatives, like diesel are used extensively to produce electricity in many countries, so it would not be fair to account for it in those cases. But even if you don't take that into account, if you saw the video, you would have seen that EVs come out ahead over the lifetime of the vehicle. Any extra CO2 saving from reduced oil production would be icing on the cake.

[@vinnyc7613]

@@ArvinAsh yes i did see video, i was being sarcastic about being funded by oil industry. i know you stated ev's are better. but if you use co footprint on energy production for ev's then you should of use co footprint on ice vehicles on its energy used to make a fair comparison, which would make ev's even better in its co foot print as to ice vehicles. when im saying energy used im referring to what energy is used to make both vehicles move. im just saying you should of compared both co footprints to what both vehicles need to move from point a to point b

[@mcpr5971]

An overlooked drawback of EV's and air quality is that a significant portion of airborne particulates comes from the rubber dust created from the friction of the tires. EV's emit just as much as ICE vehicles in that regard.

[@ArvinAsh]

EVs would be expected to emit as much, in which case it would be a wash. So the other factors I covered would be more important aspects.

[@foley.elec.services]

huh? don't you mean airborne particles from brake pads ? The weight of tyre residue (mass/cm3) is a LOT higher than pads, which means that it doesn't stay suspended (ie. you don't breath it)

[@СашаЧерный-э2т]

EV weight more, so probably tires would produce more pollution

[@jamesrobinson9176]

Life itself is the earth's co2 feedback loop

[@khh8776]

The greenest cars of 2024: Vehicles that use the least fuel and cost less to operateRank Make & Model Powertrain Green Score MSRP Estimated Annual Fuel Cost* 1 Toyota Prius Prime SE PHEV 71 $32,975 $529 2 Lexus RZ 300e EV 67 $55,150 $651 3 Mini Cooper SE EV 67 $30,900 $747 4 Nissan Leaf EV 66 $28,140 $741 5 Toyota bZ4X EV 66 $43,070 $689 6 Toyota RAV4 Prime PHEV 64 $43,690 $741 7 Hyundai Elantra Blue Gas Hybrid 64 $26,250 $864 8 Hyundai Kona Electric EV 63 $34,050 $695 9 Toyota Camry LE Gas Hybrid 63 $28,855 $907 10 Kia EV6 EV 63 $43,975 $689 11 Toyota Corolla Gas Hybrid 62 $23,500 $944 12 Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV 62 $41,650 $737

[@spindoctor6385]

The video starts with what is either a straight out lie or an ignorantly misleading statement. How is carbon dioxide bad for your health? Showing people coughing as if there is something about carbon dioxide that makes it hard to breathe is something I expect from a government add or propaganda piece.

Aww you don't even know what is happening.

[@spindoctor6385]

@ You are allowed to believe the propaganda. Most people can't see it, even when it is right in front of them. But can you tell me the negative health impacts of CO2?

[@genericjoe4082]

From journal nature, "exposure to ambient CO2 in indoor environments can have harmful effects on the human body at much lower levels, causing health problems such as inflammation, reduced cognitive performance and kidney and bone problems."

[@spindoctor6385]

@@genericjoe4082 I guess you drive your car indoors.

[@spindoctor6385]

@@genericjoe4082 That paper reports on a very few studies, 18 of them, and is talking about CO2 levels of 1000+ppm. That has zero to do with car emissions. It can be fixed by opening a window. Also it establishes no link at all and uses language like may or might be harmfull. Nature stopped being a scientific magazine about a decade ago.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

3:40 Woah there buddy, first, called them "natural gases" as "greenhouse gases" is a politically charged buzz word that neglects how greenhouses work. Second, if both are "greenhouse gases" and H2O is more absorbent, and has more parts per reaction than CO2, then H2O is the major factor in greenhouse gases not CO2. Clouds are better at blocking and absorbing heat and light than an empty sky of CO2.

[@kiamtey]

I drove tesla from Toyota. I have solar at home

[@flatisland]

15:34 a nuclear power plant when being built produces a lot of CO2 as its main building ingredient is concrete/ cement which is a climate killer (cement causes 8% of global CO2 emissions). Of course other power plants need that, too but I think it should still be mentioned.

[@CarolHaynesJ]

"There is no such thing as a free lunch" EV cars need Lithium, Cobalt and other metals - the UK are stopping sale of fossil fuel cars in 2030 and an estimate I saw that there are not enough mined materials world-wide to satisfy the demand of the UK alone - let alone a global transition to EVs. Add to that growing demand for the same materials for other technology and the wasteful cycle of phone upgrades etc. and there are rough times ahead. It also doesn't address the child labour and appalling conditions in the mining industries, esp. for Cobalt. Another point that is not addressed is where is all the electricity going to come from for charging? The UK and much of Europe has been worrying about the need to ration electricity this winter over gas prices - and currently charging a car in the UK is more expensive than filling a petrol tank because of huge energy price hikes.

[@ChrisWells1]

Good video, but I think incorrect in a couple of ways: 1) the impost of CO2e from EV manufacture is higher than 3 tonnes - Volvo (XC40 Recharge) estimate that their EV vehicle compared with their ICE equivalent takes ~ 10,700kg MORE CO2e to produce. 2) The CO2 intensity for countries such as Australia - where I am is still high even with 30% renewables - the current CO2 intensity, taking into account both scope 2 and scope 3 emissions for electrical generation is 770gCO2e/kWh right now. 3) usage emissions from ICE vehicles seems way too high. Again, volvo estimate ~ 173g/km 4) volvo also say that the EV efficiency is 240Wh/km. At 770g/kWh, this comes out tat 185g/km. So EVs emit more not just in lifetime but in operation too. Of course 240Wh/km seems high, but even if it were just 200Wh/km, it would still be 154g/km - a saving of just 20g operationally. And as you say, the differential divided by the saving is the number of break-even years. - with these figures, 10700000g/20g = 530,000km - or not within the lifetime of the vehicle. Even with skewing the argument with predictions of future decarbonisation - by no means guaranteed - you still get 240,000km break even. - see below 5) LIB battery recycling isn't taken into account, which takes energy by itself. --*-- Also - there's a tool to calculate lifecycle emissions here: climobil.connecting-project.lu/ you can plug in some figures, based on volvo and greenhouse gas inventory, and also with estimations on the ongoing effect of carbon reduction. such as: climobil.connecting-project.lu/?batteryLifetime=200000&batteryCapacity=78&greenhouseGas=145&electricCarRange=323.65&carbonElectricityMix=770&greenhouseBattery=30&greenhouseWTT=25&greenhouseTTW=173&batteryPenalty=0.9&annualMileage=12100&ICECurb=1690&ECurb=2170&NEDCpenalty=0&decarbonization=0.3 "Battery lifetime/ICE mileage"; 200,000km (source: Volvo) "Annual mileage";12100km (source: AU ABS) "Battery capacity";78kWh (source: Volvo) "Greenhouse gas emissions due to battery production";145kg/kWh (source: Volvo) "Electric car range";323.65km (source: Volvo) "Carbon content of electricity mix";770g/kWh (source: National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, November 2022) "Electricity decarbonization factor";0.30 (source: AEMO - based on 3.5% per year) "Greenhouse gas emissions of battery recycling";30kg/kWh (source: Climobil) "Greenhouse gas emissions, indirect (well-to-tank)";25g/km (source: Climobil) "Greenhouse gas emissions, direct (tank-to-wheel)";173g/km (source: Volvo) "NEDC penalty, to get real-driving ICE emissions";0 (Source: Volvo) "Battery performance ratio, winter/summer";0.9 (source: Climobil) "ICE car curb weight";1690kg (source: Volvo) "Electric car curb weight";2170kg (source: Volvo) EV won't break even within 240,000km for Australia on average, and higher in QLD, NSW and VIC Hope this helps. Cheers.

[@chrissscottt]

EVs will only become 'greener' in the future as manufacturing and grid supplies convert to renewables and lithium recycling volume reaches critical mass. Also this video doesn't take into account electric motor efficiency in converting fossil fuel generated power or the real carbon footprint of one litre of fossil fuel. I suggest Arvin look at 'Engineering Explained's' video on this topic.

[@ezrawilson6986]

I’d love to see a video that compares electric vehicles to hybrids. Personally I think that battery powered cars are far from a mature technology, and are simply not practical for most people at this time. It doesn’t help that many of the people sounding the climate change alarm are more concerned about virtue signaling than actually solving problems. They have addicted themselves to the rush of endorphins they get when they feel superior to others.

[@AladimBR]

I live in Brazil and have used ethanol from sugar cane (100% renewable and not contributing to global warming) as fuel since 1986 (when I started driving). Most cars are “flex”, meaning you can choose between ethanol and gasoline. Worth mentioning that gasoline in Brazil contains 22% ethanol. A portion of Brazil is already “carbon free” concerning fossils fuels and switching to EVs will not help on that. I also produce my own eletricity (500-800 kwh/month on solar panels) and would like to to have an EV to save on fuel. However, we are far from a positive business case here… an EV cost 3x (or more) than a flex car and it doesn’t pay off during the most of its lifecycle. Once it drops to within 20-30% of a flex vehicle, I will consider it

[@RickClark58]

People are going to find that EVs are not a viable solution. The rare earth mineral supply is going to be a growing problem and the mining of the minerals is in some cases in undeveloped countries by unscrupulous companies that employ a local work force that have to work in dangerous, hazardous conditions for a few dollars a day. The companies provide no protection for the workers and these metals are extremely hazardous. In some cases children are working in these mines with no protection. It is a terrible situation and will only grow worse over time. The other real problem with EVs is the current power grid simply would not support everyone using EVs in this country (United States) especially with temperatures rising as they have been doing. This past summer, California asked people not to charge their EVs overnight as they did not have the electricity to service the EVs and the rest of the population. Despite this obvious problem, California want to ban gas-powered cars by 2035, yet they have not put any money into improving their power grid to support such legislation. The whole notion is ridiculous and doomed to failure. EVs are a fad solution at the moment, but they certainly aren't a long-term solution as we will find out in time. A real, sustainable solution is to provide resources for mass transportation across the country. A bus or train is still the most eco-friendly method of transportation and by converting these over to electric or hydrogen, there would be a real impact on the climate. Self-drivng vehicles could also be a significant solution if they ever figure the technical problems with the technology. A fleet of cars available for trips would reduce the number of vehicles on the road by a significant amount and these could be electric or hydrogen. It would also be much more cost-effective then purchasing an EV. We need to spend money in the right places and the EV pathway certainly isn't the best use of our resources.

[@reiniernn9071]

Some of this was already told in kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIPLpZyGmsuJsK8 12:55 Recycling....Of coarse ther is no big recycling yet over batteries from EV's. My 2013 leaf still runs on its first battery....iand that also was one of the older electrical cars in my countryt. (Bought before teslaS came on market) When batteries from even the oldest cars still are running fine recycling is a nonissue yet. This will be in the (near) futute start. And when used chemicals are rare....we can be sure that they start using old batteries for mining them. (In europe they are already building recycle farms) Lifetime of a battery in an EV. My first car (Leaf 2013)already reached 1100 cycles...still running fine. When I calculate this I do not come to 200000km lifetime for a battery but to 400000 km (estimated range 400KM (better estimation would be 300000 miles or 480000 km but prefer to be a little low in estimation...and at that point still 80% capacity....which means that for most people the range still will be enough. Replacing this should be compared by also replacing an ICE combustion engine , especially those used in europe (high power output, low CC engines with turbo charging)...only for those who are driving a lot (>40000 km/year) necessary. Also I'm wondering which CO2 production you estimate from coall powerplants. In the Netherlands the modern powerplants reach from 60% up to 80% efficiency (80% is including using rest heat for other purposes) To reach this they will produce gaz from the coal...or other fuel. That will reduce the estimated CO2 / kwh produced by coal a lot. Coal powerplants are used in their optimum range for creating the base demand of electricity. (Search for steg centrale in wiki, nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoom-_en_gascentrale is a dutch page which can be translated with google) And in Poland the amount of solarpanels is exploding the last year....I can imagine that only Polish people with a lot of money can by an EV....a minority....and most of them will invest in extra solarpanels for their car. In Poland you'll not be payed for any surplus of electricity that you put back into the grid. So no use in producing more than you need for yourself in a year. The EV will stimulate people in Poland to add more panels on their roof. (I'm part of a mixed Polish Dutch couple)

[@Wstarlights]

Not sure what kind of VIOLENT SLAVERY is involved in gasoline production.. but lithium cobalt will continue to grow into the world's LARGEST VIOLENT SLAVERY operation. Gg.

[@Andrew-oh2nr]

This analysis extremely deficient. Atkinson cycle engines with CVT transmissions achieve 40-41% thermal efficiency. Typical electric generation thermal efficiency is 33% for coal and 42% for natural gas. However, this does not consider the other electric losses. Power transmission line loss on average 6.5%. Recharging losses due to heatup of the battery and charger are 12%. In cold weather, EVs loose up to 50% of their efficiency in order to heat the cabin and battery while ICE vehicles can use waste heat. EV motors are 90% efficient. Current new hybrid cars make 50-55 mpg while comparisons by EV supporters use the current 23 mpg average as a basis while assuming a fantasy world where electricity has no emissions. As of today, natural gas is 38% of the grid and coal is 22%. Adding this up, todays EV buyers get an EV thermal efficiency ranges from 40% to 20% which barely breaks even to a modern efficient ICE vehicle and could be worse than a pickup truck. This is not even considering the huge environmental and carbon emissons of building the batteries.

[@GururajBN]

Excellent presentation of a relatively obscure topic for most of the viewers. At personal level there is another problem. I understand that for optimal battery life, EV should be driven for about 20-25 KM a day. Assuming that this is correct, it poses problems to persons who use the car only during weekends or short trips.

[@jeffreyspinner9720]

You used a measure of central tendency (an average) @6:14. That is almost completely useless as presented. Unless you show how much each level of gCO2/km is contributing to the global CO2 produced, i.e., the total number of cars per gCO2 level, and then compared that to the same electrical generation cost per gCO2/km level times the total number of cars that use that as a source of electricity to charge the battery, you are comparing a phantom. I'm not even talking about how measures of central tendency remove magnitudes... Not even apples and oranges and this will be explained below. Let's take regular cars. How much CO2 does the lowest (150 gCO2/km) represent of the population or sample? How much at 245 gCO2/km, and how much between the high and low range? How does THAT compare to the same cost for EVs, per gCO2 level? Scale that up to the same population as the number of regular cars in the world? Or do some normalization transform, idc. Let's not add all the workers, the transportation of them, their feeding, housing, entertaining etc., that produce the electricity, given energy plants run themselves. Wait a second, there's more. Now, cobalt mining is extremely energy intensive as is the mining of lithium and the manufacture of batteries. Let's not include the carbon footprint of all the transport costs and manufacturing costs on top of that. Is there ANY reason these aren't amortized in this comparison that is a real demonstration of lying with statistics. I'm actually offended now given I've thought this through. So you want me to believe EVs have less a carbon footprint with all the mining, transportation of raw material, manufacturing of the batteries and their distribution; then all the carbon footprint of all the things like ppl and whatever else it takes to run and maintain a power plant? A comment below challenged the whole distillation and transport of abiotic crude should be amortized in the cost too. Now if BOTH were included in an adult level study, that would be interesting. All the mining and all the crude transport and refining. But I suspect given the simple analysis, this is propaganda only for the most simple among us. Given your pinned comment above, that "it's a wash" between regular cars and EVs about abiotic "fossil" fuels, that means all the mining, transporting, manufacturing, etc., costs to get the raw materials and manufacture the batteries would increase ONLY EVs carbon footprint. Regular cars win. Prove me wrong.

[@Dmcaoc]

The best car is no car. Driving not only emits CO2, it also has devastating health and social effects these are best reduced by; 1 reducing car use by reducing distances that we need to travel & switching to walking/cycling or public transport for longer trips. 2 reducing the weight of vehicles, lighter = less emissions and risk to/intimidation of peds/cyclists 3 reducing the speed of vehicles, slower = less emissions and risk to/intimidation of peds/cyclists 4 By going electric, as you outlined = 50-30% reductions in CO2 emissions and 50-80% in health-damaging emissions, but no improvement in the health toll of inactivity & social isolation, the land consumed by road % parking which destroys communities.

[@toby9999]

EVs are largely unaffordable and until that changes significantly, most people won't buy them. I'll never own one because I'll never be able to afford one. Additionally, every extra EV put on the road in my city is effectivelly coal powered. We're decades away from fixing that problem. And finally, again the cost... I may save $1000 annually on fuel but the break even is around 30 years.