THE BIG EV LIE. Why They Won't Save the Planet & All About Dirty Electricity | TheCarGuys.tv

[@TheJudge2017]

Reminder. California has banned the sale of Gas cars after 2035. They then, 2 weeks later, told people not to charge the electric cars because the energy grid can not support it.

[@bobmarshall3700]

And they are also saying that there is so much excess solar energy going into the grid that it will overload the system. Big business is just motivated by greed to try to influence stupid people who continue to support fossil fuel. When anything new comes onto the market there are always "teething" problems to overcome. That won't happen when people put their heads in the sand and refuse to make positive changes work by further perserverence in research.

[@zerbutterftw]

lmfao

[@iankinnell5643]

That doesn't shock me with how woke the are

[@DaveT-cv9gp]

People should never read into what California does and just refuse to accept their policy.

[@bobochan4699]

A month later, told people to stop breathing out CO2 cause its greenhouse gas. Except for the ultra rich, they can pay taxes.

[@danf-gg4lk]

When the politicians and celebrities sell their private jets, all their mansions, their limos and live the way they want us to, then maybe they can be taken seriously.

[@deaf19830]

Muchos, well said!! But you only had 2 likes prior to mine. It’s not about the environment, they dumb people down to keep us enslaved in a so called free world. They are controlled by demons who are very smart and manipulative

[@florida57]

That is a great answer. That's why what ever they say if there not setting an example, that's how I know there full of crap. It's all about making money if there invested in these products. Not bettering the environment.

[@williemaykit7940]

I agree.

[@Zulu2020]

My words exactly!

[@enriquet2562]

Exactly ALL, not some, BUT ALL including Trump and Biden

[@friendlyfire7861]

Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an energy storage medium. It takes more energy to isolate hydrogen in burnable form than you get by burning it.

[@stevebradley8862]

Uncertain about point of source vs medium. Energy sources or mediums have energy potential until that is converted into kinetic energy through chemical reaction, heat, pressure etc. The economics of producing lithium batteries compared to the value of energy it produces is net negative and more expensive ($35,000 - 50k/ton) and appear much greater than hydrogen production costs ($500-$1000 per ton). Over 87 billion tons of hydrogen were produced in 2022 and it’s used to make key chemicals like ammonia and iron ore. And it’s plentiful on planet

[@friendlyfire7861]

​@@stevebradley8862 Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, as you point out, but it can't be found anywhere on earth in a form that can be burned since, as a reactive atom and molecule, that has already happened. The easiest place to get it is from water, but the process of burning has to be effectively reversed. That's a net negative of energy. That makes it a storage medium of energy, not a source, which is how it was described at some point in the video. Within the closed system of a car, hydrogen may be seen as a source, but in the system of energy production and use, it is a way to carry energy, not a source of it the way fossil fuels are (you can’t mine hydrogen and burn it for a net positive energy flow). Fossil fuels take energy to refine but have a massive net gain in energy within the system of Earth (not including its ultimate source in solar energy, hence fusion). So the point is clarity, and that clarity sheds light on how it’s a bit of a red herring and on what I think is a problem with the comparison you made above. Producing a ton of lithium is not producing energy but producing a way to carry it in a battery for repeated use. Producing a ton of hydrogen fuel is a way of obtaining a one-time source of energy within a closed system, or, another means of carrying energy for one-time use. Those are two different things, so they should not be directly compared. This in turn is important because while hydrogen has a lot of really excellent uses, it doesn’t rank well for automobiles. Natural gas, for example, is hugely net positive in the refinement process, has a lot more energy per unit mass, and is far easier and safer to transport, store under pressure, and transfer from a fueling station to a vehicle. Hydrogen loses on all counts there although it has a slightly better effect on the local environment. Gasoline or diesel are by far better than hydrogen or natural gas when it comes to energy, safety, and transfer with automobiles, though gasoline is worse on the local environment and diesel somewhat worse still. Being a net negative “source” of energy is just one more blow against it. (By the way, I don’t mean to say that hydrogen is unsafe “because of the Hindenburg.” By now, hydrogen would be as safe on a dirigible as the jet fuel we use on aircraft every day and probably safer-it has a higher ignition temperature, for example. So that’s a facile argument-I am talking about compressed hydrogen. That presents problems with storage, transfer, and getting enough energy in a canister to make it useful for an automobile, in comparison with natural gas or just plain gasoline, which really can’t be beat as a fuel.) Additionally, the concept of using hydrogen or batteries on a large scale are both dependent on a renewable source to make sense in the full system of energy use (not in the closed system of a city, where they produce no pollutants). Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal power ain’t gonna cut it. It has to be something with real punch like nuclear, and what would really solve the vast majority of any current problems we have with fossil fuels or nuclear power (massively exaggerated, in my opinion), is that magical day when we figure out fusion. And for that, we are just going to have to be patient little boys and girls and wait. ns from one place in the battery to another.

[@tylerdurden3722]

Thats true for all storage mediums in the universe. Otherwise you'd be generating energy out of nothing. Unless you've figured out a way to break the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Think about it. If it took less energy to recharge a battery, than you'll get out of it after fully charged, you'd be creating extra energy out of nothing. Of course the energy you put in to isolate a Lithium-ion from its Cobalt compound, is going to be less than you get out when you chemically bond it with again.

[@friendlyfire7861]

@@tylerdurden3722 Your comment is why people say it is a waste of time to talk to people through comments.

[@davidhair8295]

It may be plentiful, but what he said about expending more energy to make it than you get out of it when used as a fuel! 10:03 n​@stevebradley8862

[@WillyChan-h8k]

I always believe the Japanese offer a great model for the rest of the world: efficient public transport + popularity of very small cars (aka k-cars) with excellent fuel efficiency and durability. The problem with cars, primarily, is because too many people love to drive huge SUVs or pick-up trucks with 8 or 12 cylinders transporting hardly more than one person. In Japan, almost half of their cars are 660cc or less and eat less fuel than a motorbike. Yet they work just fine on virtually all kinds of day-to-day needs. That is one of the many reasons why all Japanese automakers are reluctant to invest in pure EVs, because it is not just more expensive to buy but also more expensive to run a EV than a conventional car in Japan.

[@lepidoptera9337]

That sounds good, until you hit the realities of the international car market and then this business strategy is dead on arrival.

[@ThorstenKreutzenberger]

This is kind of stuff you can do in a fachist state. In a democrazy (pun intended) things are different.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@ThorstenKreutzenberger The size of cars is mostly a function of parking. If you go to Europe, you will find that there is nowhere to park a large American truck in a typical medieval European city. People are buying small cars because they don't have space for large ones. It's no different in Tokyo.

[@ThorstenKreutzenberger]

@@lepidoptera9337 I am from Germany and I drive a 33yr old car, a corrado G60. Mostly because its very fast, light and quite small. But over 50% of the cars in this country are huge and enormous in size and heavy like small trucks and most people would buy an Infantry fighting vehicle if they could afford it. Even in big cities. I cant support your statement 100%.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@ThorstenKreutzenberger A Tesla Y (Germany's best selling model in 2023, isn't it?) is not "huge". It's very small compared to a RAM 3500 or a Ford F-450. It's small compared to even a Rivian R1S or R1T. I kind of doubt it will be useful in a city like Milan, though, where you are having trouble parking even a scooter in the back alleys.

[@TheFRiNgEguitars]

The term "electric car" sounds high tech and attractive. The term "Battery Powered car" describes accurately what it is.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

So true

[@ryanguffy4739]

Every rechargeable battery toy in my life has been a dissapointment ....doubt a car would be different.

[@sigint99]

Not all eVs are battery powered. There are hydrogen and zinc air fuel cell eVs which are a better proposition for longer range and safety.

[@ricktd6891]

Communist death machine is better.

[@GK-op4oc]

Electric Motor Car accurately describes the car because it has an electric motor (and brakes !)

[@paulsmith3820]

This is a very good presentation. I spent more than 30 years in the electric utility business in Texas. My company operates one of two nuclear power stations in Texas. It is the most reliable form of power generation. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Texans, as well as people around the world, don't have a clue about electric energy, i.e., how it is generated, transmitted, distributed, or costed. They are easy prey for demagogues. At the end of the day, the key question is what can I do to reduce my environmental footprint. What my counterpart in China does is immaterial; I have no control over him. So, I drive a Toyota Corolla, live in a small house, use public transport whenever possible, turn off the lights when not in use, etc. Little things add up.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Very sensible approach, Paul. Thanks for watching.

[@donaldoehl7690]

I live in Texas too, but I'll be damned if I'm giving up my AC!

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@donaldoehl7690 😂😂

[@paulsmith3820]

@@donaldoehl7690 No one is asking you to give up your AC. The most effective cost/benefit trade off for most Texans is to set the thermostat at 78 in the summer and run ceiling fans.

[@macflod]

Hey that is exactly the point. Rampant consumerism is the biggest problem. Instead of constantly buying new stuff manufactured on the other side of earth, keep things longer. Then people will say economies collapse but i disagree, as whole new shops can open servicing and repairing older items- Like there used to be. I don’t like how economists call us consumers! It makes we think of some parasite constantly eating stuff! But this is the truth, we buy too much stuff, if we all kept our cars 2 or three years longer, bought new clothes less and do on then that would have a huge impact to help. However its harder to sell that path to people as it requires sacrifice, easier to get them to buy a trendy new car with a green badge on it.

[@brucew5130]

Some great points there. Unfortunately I have no faith in our shallow thinking governments. If nothing changes they’ll blindly run us into an electricity supply crisis. Prices will skyrocket well beyond what we can comprehend.

[@IanMcc1000]

If you read an interview with the guy that runs the UK National Grid, he doesn't think there will be a problem. Not every car will be on charge at the same time, and about half will be charged at night on the owners driveway. There is huge capacity off peak that is wasted currently. Energy prices are skyrocketing - if we wanted to reduce draw on the grid, we should ban crypto mining.

[@dlarge6502]

@@IanMcc1000 > we should ban crypto mining Omg that is so ridiculous a thought it is indicative of the real problems in how people think as this video demonstrates. We should ban fashion and shopping. Mining is peanuts to that.

[@IanMcc1000]

@@dlarge6502 proof of stake, not proof of work is much more energy efficient and would help towards semiconductor shortage

[@IanMcc1000]

@@dlarge6502 The point is, that cars will often be charged off peak using spare capacity. Mining runs 24/7. It uses about 0.5% of the worlds electricity, which might seem like small fry but is actually a lot of electricity. One bitcoin transaction uses 1719.51 kilowatt hours - or 6876 miles in an EV. I'd agree with you that fast fashion is an environmental problem too.

[@neknosnaws5990]

As demand increases, prices rise to stay in the same ratio to other prices were before. This ratio will approximate the current cost of petroleum fuel, so where will be the savings when that happens?

[@jeremiahpuckett5836]

One thing you could have mentioned is the effects of the pandemic and global shutdown. Air travel was greatly reduced. Cruise ships halted completely. Non-essential factories were shut down. In the USA, We instantly saw 95-97% of cars suddenly off the roads. Thats better than converting to EV, as EV is still charged with coal and gas. The ICE cars and EVs were sitting in garages. Yet, we only saw a 5.4% reduction in CO2 emissions. We shut down globally, and it didn’t even make a dent. CO2 in the atmosphere still increased.

[@craig0077]

Climate change and global warming is a big scam to stop the peasants (like us) from using fossil fuels so there is more for the private jets, yachts and mansions for the ELITE. CO2 is actually good for plant life, which makes the planet more fertile and will produce bigger harvests. Don't believe all the climate change lies.

[@mikemoses1009]

That's the only reason the shut down planned by every one that needed to know and the test results of no reduction in CO2 gas or effect on our planet

[@RedpillPortugal]

Because it's all a lie

[@BillClinton228]

No one asks really important questions like where is the emissions tax money going? This is just another money making racket and nothing more

[@craig0077]

@@BillClinton228That's what you get (or don't get) from the left wing marxist press.

[@mixflip]

I agree. EV should be a personal choice. I would like an EV for my commute 5 days a week....and a big V8 4x4 to play with on the weekends.

[@TerraRyzin78]

For what the V8? Dirty, ponderous, expensive fuel,...

[@mixflip]

@@TerraRyzin78 I know right...isn't it glorious

[@TerraRyzin78]

@@mixflip yeah 1000% for sure :D

[@rogerphelps9939]

So you wish it to be your personal choice to make the plasnet uninhabitable in large swathes for your kids and ghrandchildren. That is very selfish, isn't it.

[@mixflip]

@@rogerphelps9939 oh please....spare the holier than thou BS. Where do you think all that electricity will come from if we snap our fingers and make all 270 million cars require charging at the same time? The grid would shut down if we all switched. Plus we still need to run our ac units in the summer while charging cars. Also do you even know what it takes to build a battery? Elements like lithium cobalt nickel graphite copper manganese carbon... how do you think we get these materials out of the ground? With diesel and gas machines. How do we transport them? With dielectric and gas trucks and trains. How do we process them? In factories that run off the electrocal grid (turbines that use fossil fuel) and emits pollution by the millions of tons. How do they deliver the vehicles? On trucks and trains that use gas and diesel. The carbon footprint of EVs is not what you think. It's not green at all. It's just more convenient to kick the problem down the road. Not solve it.

[@stevec9669]

"They Won't Save the Planet", they will save politician's job. That's what really matter.

[@avid5581]

As a Tesla MYP owner, here's my calculus: Over the course of 200k miles, I'll save around $20,000 in the cost of electricity compared to fueling a comparable ICE vehicle. Maintenance costs will be lower by several thousand as well. In the meantime, I get to to have instant torque and the fun of going 0-60 in 3.5 seconds :). On top of all that there's good evidence from high-mileage Teslas that are part of ride-sharing programs that these cars can regularly last 300k-500k miles with acceptable levels of battery degradation, which means waiting much longer before buying a new car. It's also completely suitable for my needs in terms of range and charging availability. (I know this last point is not the case for many and I'm not pushing BEVs on anyone.) For many people, PHEV and HEV make more sense, and for many people, the upfront cost is simply too high, so they don't have the luxury of amortizing the higher upfront cost over many years. Understood. While there are a lot of great points, much of this guy's reasoning and what he chooses to accentuate is distorted to fit his worldview. E.g. with a 60% fossil fuel to 40% renewable mix of grid power, keep in mind that that 60% portion is still considerably more efficient and less carbon intensive than the engine in your car, because it's produced at a larger scale and much of it is from natural gas in all likelihood (this gets to the issue of well-to-wheel efficiency). And the 40% coming from renewables, which have much lower lifecycle emissions than fossil fuels, is nothing to sneeze at. It is well within our capability to increase that 40% share over then next few decades. Energy storage will have to increase due to higher variability of renewables, to be sure. Studies of the well-to-wheel efficiency and cradle-to-grave environmental impacts - which are much more comprehensive than anything this video gets into - consistently demonstrate the superiority of BEV to ICE in those regards. That is, unless you live in an area with a very high percentage of electricity generated by coal... so if you happen to live in West Virginia and buy and EV with a massive 100kwh battery, you won't be doing the environment any favors. The broader point of road transportation being a relatively small portion of overall emissions is an incredibly important one, and we need to take more action in other sectors. But 15% is still 15%, and should not be ignored. The points on promoting nuclear, stopping deforestation, and general consumerism, I 100% agree with. It's a shame that nuclear has been vilified for so long. One final thing - this guy seems to have a bug up his butt about wind. The impact of burying those used blades and of bird deaths is paltry compared to impacts like particulate pollution, tailings, spill/leaks from fossil fuels.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Actually, I have "a bug up my butt" about being lied to. And you'll note, if you want an EV, I don't have a problem with that - go ahead and enjoy it.

[@avid5581]

@@TheCarGuysTV The bigger point is, although the video does in excellent job in explaining why personal autos are only a small part of the problem and that BEVs have incorrectly been touted as a panacea by some of their advocates, it is still quite biased in how it presents its information. Someone would probably leave your video believing that the cradle-to-grave impact of BEV in a place like the US with a 60% fossil fuel/40% renewable electrical grid is worse than ICE, when it is actually better by a significant margin. They would leave your video believing that they have to live in a place like Norway or Iceland in order for a BEV to be better from an environmental standpoint. You don't like being lied to. So who lied to you by claiming that wind/solar have no end-of-life waste or upfront emissions associated with them? Where do studies of well-to-wheel efficiencies of BEV vs ICE lie to you? Where do I lie to you in my comment? I do note that you don't have a problem with anyone for having a BEV, so thank you for that. I also don't have a problem with people continuing to buy ICE vehicles. But I think that there is justification for some moderate public policy actions to incentivize hybrid/electric vehicles.

[@Mav86asian]

@@avid5581 congratulations, you carry 400kgs of toxic materials in your battery around everyday, which to make cause significant environmental damage in the first place (not in your own country of course). Then, when it’s life ends, these batteries will damage the environment once more.

[@avid5581]

@@Mav86asian All true, and any decent life-cycle assessment of EV versus ICE will account for both the extraction of those additional materials (regardless of what country it happens in) and waste produced at the end of the vehicle's life. And despite those higher upfront and back-end impacts, EV still beats out ICE (with an electrical grid like the US or European average being used to charge the vehicle during its useful life). Why? Because the large majority of an ICE vehicle's environmental impact occurs during the use phase, when it is using an extremely inefficient petrol engine to power the vehicle. So congratulations, while you do bring up valid points that serve to lessen the benefits of BEV, you continue to fail to understand the relative significance of these factors in the broader picture, which is really what matters. This is not to say that we shouldn't work to improve the human and enviro impact of mining for minerals needed in car batteries - we absolutely should. Finally, despite the extra weight, from a driving enjoyment perspective, I'd never go back to ICE. Even when driving a fairly sporty ICE car, it's extremely sluggish and unresponsive once you've gotten used to a BEV like the MYP.

[@melnima]

@@avid5581 I knew there were many counter arguments to the video, but didn't want to spend the time looking it all up. I had forgotten about the "well to wheel" efficiency and cost studies. So thanks for pretty much pulling the rug out from under the main thrust of the video.

[@hopelessdecoy]

My workplace banned paper coffee cups and plastic silverware in the cafe for the planet but made everyone drive back to the office 100%. We mainly talk on phones and zoom

[@bankaihampter2802]

They live in a delusion. Taking away plastic silverware and thinking they changing something. Makes me angry. I hate those paper straws in mcd since they were introduced. I can't enjoy my shake with proper straw while some influencers are flying on private jets

[@kencarp57]

The ridiculous virtue-signalling is all too common these days. It's like putting a bandaid on a cancer. It's completely USELESS, but it makes them look like they're doing SOMETHING to help. It my view, it simply makes them look STUPID. Don't get me started on this whole "back to the office" nonsense. That is ALL about executive EGOS... they want everyone back in the office because they want to see people "working" and "collaborating", even though they don't really even know what that means, nor how to measure the effectiveness of it. It's simply the world they grew up in and with which they are most comfortable. It's a culture thing, and culture is by FAR the most difficult thing to change. They don't know how to measure people when they are not in sight, which is stupid because numbers are numbers and the computerized systems track everything anyway. It's just pure executive hubris, and living in the past by trying to maintain the perception that they are in control of things. Hint: they're NOT! During the pandemic shutdowns, the air quality in large cities improved DRAMATICALLY, and people were quite happy NOT having to commute to the office every day. The price of oil actually went NEGATIVE for a time because of the lack of demand because people weren't driving a hour to and from the office twice every work day. But business went on just fine. But now, thanks to all of these ridiculous "back to the office" directives, it's pretty much back to where it was. My wife's company, in the insurance business, requires all employees to be in the office 4 days every week. The people HATE having to do that, but they aren't given a choice. There is no reason for this at all, because 99% of the people are just sitting there working on their computers and talking to other people on MS Teams all day anyway. But, their executives all grew up in the Old World, in which everyone went to the office every day - and they just don't "get" remote working nor remote collaboration. It's absolutely ridiculous for them to require people to commute to and from the office every day, but they just can't get over their antiquated "I need you HERE so I can SEE you working, even though I literally spend 99% of every single day sitting in MY office talking on the phone or doing video sessions myself" mindset. My company is much more open to it. I work for a large tech firm, and the remote working thing is much more accepted. They still want us to go see customers in person - even though getting travel approvals is well-nigh IMPOSSIBLE, and the customers really don't want vendors on site anyway. But I'm finally retiring at the end of this month, and I will no longer have to deal with ANY of this craziness!

[@rickiecheese36]

Thanks for a very good video. This should be compulsory viewing for the nation and in schools. The best thing for the environment is to keep the car you have, try to drive it less, and keep it for as long as possible. We need to stop the leasing model for cars. where they are replaced very 3 years. I have never understood why people are so anti nuclear power, but even I was shocked that it is cleaner than wind and solar.

[@richardlinares6314]

According to this video, driving(12% of GHG emissions) is "minuscule". LOL, "Banned"?! So if you pick up Starbucks they force you to trash it? Or do they just not pay for something that will only be used for a 30 minutes? I'm guessing you don't use paper cups/plates at home.

[@billgates-qi9st]

It's just virtue signalling. GWR does the same nonsense, we are encouraged to use separate bins for different waste then when the lorry comes to pick up the waste, it all gets thrown together! The manager responsible for introducing these separate bins got an award for his commitment to net zero. It's all nonsense, they must think we are soft in the head.

[@jeffreycheng5984]

"You cannot have an honest discussion about climate change without addressing the climate engineering intervention operations."- Dane Wigington.

[@Robbedem]

I'm afraid we will have to resort to climate engineering. I just hope that over 50 years we won't have created another issue instead. (which tbh, seems rather likely)

[@zanshikaijin2709]

Actually, I don't think most people can have an honest conversation about the topic. Too many evangelists.

[@tedmoss]

@chemik That's to negative, how about with the help of the sane part of the world, Ukraine will put Russia out of its misery and everyone will be better off.

[@tedmoss]

@chemik We have been there before - about 10 to 15 thousand years ago.

[@TrentGustus]

@@tedmoss actually the way western governments are going, predicting food shortages, raising taxes on everything, locking society down with plandemics, all feeding political and corporate greed, the future might be better in Russia with Krause, Bill gates running the west.

[@nzkiwi9]

I have a background in the air freight industry in addition to nuclear & solar energy fields. Everything I saw in this video was spot on, level headed & reasonable. Thank you for adding to the conversation in a constructive way.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@virtual-adam]

Do you agree with the view that hybrids are the best way to go?

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@virtual-adam It’s better than full EVs in my opinion

[@virtual-adam]

@@TheCarGuysTV Seems to be a good choice from the graphs I've seen. But how accurate they are I don't know!

[@JohnDoe-ff2fc]

@@virtual-adam A hybrid can get you away from your home if you live in California when they shut down power lines during a brush/forest fire and your battery needs a charge by using gas

[@davidjuchems]

It's good to hear a sane person talk about reality thank you

[@TheCarGuysTV]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@jamesstewart1794]

100 💯💪💯💪💯💪💯

[@deadwingdomain]

Do you feel better. Because Electric is still the way to go.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@deadwingdomain Have you learnt nothing, Don?

[@nastynick7125]

@@deadwingdomain man you’re dumb

[@Ingline-wg9lh]

What the world needs is more fish in the ocean, more birds in the sky, and more trees on the land.

[@Hjominbonrun]

Government here in the UK was pushing Diesels in early 2000's. All of a sudden, emissions is killing the market.

[@JustQzen]

Same thing in Sweden. The government was pushing the biogas movement forward. Saab (A Swedish car manufacturer) was gladly jumping through the governments hoops and created several cars that run on biogas. A couple of thousand people in Sweden was happy owners of their biogas powered Saabs until the government flipped and said "No this is bad for the environment, we dont want Saab to produce these cars anymore." Basically fucking over Saab and the Saab owners.

[@giacomoneri1782]

@@JustQzen reading through the lines, it looks they're just trying to sell more new cars by outlawing old ones. Meanwhile Russia is going back to Soviet standards, and i feel a strong urge to learn Russian

[@richardcranium3417]

It’s all government make believe including “manmadeglobalwarmingglobalcoolingclimatechange.” Notice how they dropped the “man made” part?!? Create a “crisis”. Sell a “crisis”. Profit from said “crisis.” Rinse repeat. And people never learn or remember. How’s the ozone doing? I thought it blocked the terrible heating killer rays from the sun……had to go to clothes ruining deodorant to “save the ozone.” Turns out the ozone didn’t need to be saved. It does fine on its own regardless of what we do. Just like Yellowstone park. It’s being touted as “never seen before, never happened before, won’t ever see it again, unprecedented, once in a life time” flooding. Uh huh. If we control the planet I can’t wait to see them steering hurricanes this summer to avoid hitting any countries.

[@JustQzen]

@@richardcranium3417 The ozone has the ability to repair itself yes. And after we stopped using the Freon or CFCs fridges we saw a massive drop in ozone killing gases. But I understand what you are saying and I totally agree. They are just trying to make us buy the next new planet saving thing. Two of the biggest contributors to microplastics is textiles and tire wear. Not once person has ever spoken up about some planet saving tires or "stop washing your clothes" but we cant have plastic straws in restaurants North America or Europre because people in South America and Asia dont have proper waste management.

[@dallysinghson5569]

It wasn't just Saab.... Volvo too.

[@GremlinSciences]

I love the "Total emissions per car in its lifetime" figures. Anyone realize just how long a diesel engine lasts compared to a petrol engine, and how much harder they're ran? Diesel vehicles tend to see a lot more mileage under a lot more load, and when you're comparing the emissions of a big rig that's been hauling 20 tonnes of freight 16 hours a day 6 days a week for 20+ years to a dinky 4-door sedan that was only driven a few hours each week for 5 years, it's kinda obvious which one will have emitted more over its life.

[@edwardcullen1739]

Also notice that the diesel had higher total mileage in the graphic. I also believe that there was some SERIOUS manipulation of the figures with respect to fuel - that there was some "offsetting" of the CO2 for the petrol to make it look much better. Also, why do diesel vehicles take more to produce? This smells... The issue with diesel is NOT CO2, it's particulates and byproducts, such as oxides of nitrogen, that are bad for human health.

[@DuKsOmI]

And the scale is chosen to look like it’s a huge difference between petrol and diesel, but it’s just quite small… or at least smaller than it appears in the graph.

[@GremlinSciences]

@@davidc2838 The strain on the power grid is _massive_ though, and the range is honestly atrocious for how long it takes to charge them. Diesel semi can get as much as 2500 km from a single refueling which takes less than 10 minutes. Electric semi only gets 750km before it reaches 0% which takes 45+ minutes at a 1.5 MEGAwatt charger to recharge, and that range is cut down considerably if the trailer requires power (eg, a refrigerated trailer) all that time saved on fueling/charging means they can get further in a day and haul more freight in less time, and that compounds with the diesel semi being considerably lighter meaning it can haul more per load and thus earn more per load. EDIT: corrected an incorrect time. 30 minute charge time on the Tesla semi is for 20-80%, but charging slows after 80%. Updated figure of 45 minutes is for 30-100%, equivalent to ~500 km range with a 30% buffer for powered trailers. Also, I'd like to point out that most truckers hate waiting even 5 minutes to confirm a delivery, they won't take too kindly to having to take an extra 2-3 hours every day to charge when their diesel truck only took 10 minutes every other day. They only get so many hours a day to drive, and even their stops for food and fuel cut into that.

[@DuKsOmI]

@@davidc2838 you are very optimistic… the question is, if they really wanna try it by using batteries, because I don’t see any future there. Fuel alternatives in combination with an electric motor could actually be the future. But we’ll see, your can’t predict the future, neither can I.

[@GremlinSciences]

@@BelowMeGoggle Diesel engines can run on _anything_ flammable as long as you achieve sufficient compression. You can get them to run on cotton and other plant fibers, or even plain atmosphere if you try hard enough. Other potential fuels include natural gas byproducts from landfills and composting, synthetic gas from heating assorted biomass, plant and/or animal lipids, and plant- or algae-based sludges.

[@borountree4539]

I bought a year old 1980 Datsun B210 wagon and drove it for 27 years. Was still going strong but I needed something easier for my mom to transfer into since she had become disabled. I bought a 4 year old Scion XB and hope to drive it forever since I love it so much. Besides being the best thing for the planet at the moment it also saves so much money to buy a lightly used car and drive it as long as possible.

[@pvmagnus]

Yes. Problem is most others including the guy who made this video doesn't want that. That's why if the problem of emissions has to be solve we need marshal plan action.. that this thing like a war & get rationing going.

[@gordons3071]

One of the best straightforward videos on this subject I've seen. Most thinking people know EV's are not a cure all, but all people need to explore all sides of the problems. Oh, and like you, I loathe the self-righteous ignorant people who look down on others and ignorantly believe they are saving the world by owning an EV.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Glad you enjoyed it, Gordon

[@curtisducati]

This is why we all pay massive electric bills , to fill a car cost's £70 , cost's £20 to charge a car OR IT DID ....Now it costs £70 to charge a car or will doo very soon , this is why the electric is triple charge now , the government is losing millions a week in lost diesel & petrol tax ....So they triple the electricity hahahahaha

[@jdb5152]

Those that think electricity is a “free market” are delusional. We know the price is fixed. It’s all about keeping you poor. So, indeed, prices will triple and quadruple soon. “They” must maintain cash flow. So, if the “energy industry” is $1 today, it must be $1 tomorrow. So, don’t start thinking you’re gonna save money. “They” want it and “they” will take it.

[@lisashiela9137]

Electric vehicles have a dirty secret: the lithium and cobalt that are in EV car batteries destroy the environment and violate human rights. EVs contribute to environmental problems in ways that many people might not even realize. Lithium mining requires a massive amount of water, which is increasingly in short supply in many regions of the world. Approximately 500,000 gallons of water get used for every ton of lithium mined. To extract lithium, “miners drill a hole in salt flats and pump salty, mineral-rich brine to the surface.” The water then evaporates after several months, which leaves lithium and other minerals. The Lithium Triangle in South America, which includes portions of Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, contains more than half of the world’s supply of lithium. The region is also very dry. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, lithium mining consumes 65% of the region’s water. The problem is so bad that farmers and other people in the local communities have to get water elsewhere. In addition to using a great deal of water, lithium mining causes water, soil, and air pollution. Toxic chemicals like hydrochloric acid used in the mining process can leak from evaporation pools and contaminate the surrounding area. Another problem regarding lithium-ion EV car batteries is the high amount of lithium-ion waste. For example, in Australia, “only two percent of the country’s 3,300 metric tons” of lithium-ion batteries get recycled. The lithium-ion waste typically ends up in landfills, where it can potentially leak into the environment. In addition to lithium, another mineral used in EV car batteries is cobalt. Unfortunately, cobalt mining has many of the same negative environmental impacts as lithium. This includes water, soil, and air pollution.

[@curtisducati]

@@lisashiela9137 Glad I kept my Diesel !

[@animal355]

The best quote I read recently was; ‘The EV isn’t designed to save the planet, but to save the motor industry’ and that says it all.

[@itheuserfirst3186]

No one needs to save the motor industry. People prefer cars; not public transportation, and as pandemics continue to arise, the whole people crammed together like rats in cities ideal will seem even less appealing.

[@animal355]

@@itheuserfirst3186 I think the EV revolution will close down many small independent manufacturers, Caterham, Morgan and many more. It will in fact damage the motor industry.

[@hulkhatepunybanner]

@@animal355 *That's inaccurate. Those are specialty builders. The larger market is focused on daily drivers. Caterham, Morgan, Lotus et al do not build cars for the masses and will be fine. Even if the oil industry is reduced, these cars' low use/low demand would keep them on the market.*

[@hulkhatepunybanner]

@@itheuserfirst3186 *Not taking the bus (a motor vehicle) or train doesn't mean people will have a car the next day. The cost to own a personal car is too high for the majority of people on the planet. The fix is fewer private cars and more buses, streetcars, and taxis. If most of these are electric there's less pollution trying to kill us.*

[@animal355]

@@hulkhatepunybanner but aren’t all car manufacturers got to diverse into EV technologies by 2030? It’s what I read for the UK

[@triw117]

FYI I’m a few minutes into your video rn but I like the way you present info. No nonsense with a little bit of dry humor. It’s refreshing.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Thank you.

[@AlbertZonneveld]

@@TheCarGuysTV Somehow you failed to mention that cobalt was used primarily by the fossile fuel industry so far. The human rights abuse and such were all started by fossile fuel companies needing cobalt to desulpherize their fuels. Battery makers are already reducing the amount of cobalt and Lithium in batteries An EV's uses about 25%-30% of the energy that a fossiel fuel car does. Even with 100% from fossiel fuel powerplants it goes only up to half. In the Netherlands we need only 15% extra electricity to power all cars electrically.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@AlbertZonneveld Hi Albert. I didn’t mention that because that’s not what the video was about. Did you not notice? It wasn’t the Big ICE Truth, was it?

[@richardlinares6314]

@@TheCarGuysTV *"It wasn’t the Big ICE Truth, was it?"* It wasn't titled "The BIG Cherry Picked Truth about EVs" either. You made several debunked comparisons about emissions. But neglected a comparison on cobalt, or how many EVs on the market have zero cobalt. You just regurgitated some OPEC propaganda. And the, "This one solitary thing won't single handedly solve this issue, so let's do nothing til we do everything" argument you present is just a call to inaction.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@richardlinares6314 No, it’s a call to focus on the more impactful things first. You could convert every car to EV and it won’t make any difference. Yet that’s the one with all the focus.

[@JamesEhler]

When we did "Cash for Clunkers" here in the US and i read the list of cars turned in, there was a... (wipes away tear) 1987 Buick Gran National. As part of turning it in.... they HAD to destroy the motor!! Oh the humanity!!

[@theboyisnotright6312]

That program was so evil. Gone were the 500$ beaters for sale. Now you need at least 2k for a clunker. 😢

[@stevemarshall3986]

Agreed. Who in their right mind would do that.

[@user-jf6tb5sp6f]

One of the greatest tragedies in the engineering history of your country.

[@AncientTexan]

You did an excellent job ... as an extractive metallurgist I have some expertise on supply chain issues ....so I am a real scientist/engineer and I don't think I could do as good a job as you have done in looking at all the issues. I am 99% on board with everything you said. We are at the beginning of a long journey without a good map and we are acting like we have all the answers ... great job in pointing out the hypocrisy in lots of the environmental crowd.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@paritoshdaurwal9484]

Bravo

[@pilotko5899]

I agree it was a god job..but u forgot to mention a few very importants variables: such as use of EV's batteeies as a energy storage to balance between weather dependend sources in cooperation of nuclear as base, Even if we use electricity from 80% of fossil, using EVs will reduce its use. Just because of huge difference between efficiency of petrol powered car (25%) and elec.powered EV (90%)..and yes, even with 10-15% of loses for electricity transport and battery charge.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@pilotko5899 There are no batteries big/powerful enough to make up the shortfall of energy from renewables or gas if there is no nuclear. Sorry.

[@barrydulson4489]

Well said as a nation we need to get on board together to make that difference

[@cmdreffietrinket]

I once took 50 of the UK’s largest Farmers, to one of the UK’s largest power stations that was at the time (10years ago), converting from coal to renewable fuels to power its furnaces. The idea was that this Generator would buy suitable fuel crops from the Farmers who would start to grow suitable crops on their sub standard, non-producing, or set-aside land, and sell directly to the Generator. All sounded just great. Sadly, the Generator instead chose to build a deforestation plant in the USA, chop the tops off all the mountains in Virginia, process all the trees into pellets, then ship them across the Atlantic to the UK in ships that produce more pollution than all the cars in the UK put together. Yea for the stupidity of our species.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Good lord, that is idiotic…

[@tempest411]

Yeah, something that stupid fits Virginia to a 'T'...

[@kevinireland8020]

Sounds more like West Virginias coal extraction strategy.

[@slowride1006]

It's kinda funny you mentioned that. There was a study done about something like this. The manufacturing of Toyota Prius is substantially more harmful to the environment than buying and driving a Ford F-150. If people take better care of their vehicles as well as they should. Keeping more than half a tank of gas in their vehicles. This causes gunk to get into the fuel line and clogs the fuel filter and prevents cleaner fuel and requires more fuel to get the same performance. The longer we hold to and properly maintain our current vehicles, reducing the number of vehicles to be manufactured. We need to go back to the when things were made to last.

[@MmeCShadow]

19:23 "Our politicians have little understanding of what they're doing." Not to speak for the UK, but over in the US upper-level support for green energy is much less about a lack of understanding and more about a malicious refusal to acknowledge facts proportionate to how much money a given industry is shoveling toward the politicians.

[@morninboy]

Like Ted Cruz being beholden to the NRA. Kids with military assault rifles and armed guards at every school. Stupid is as stupid does

[@craigcampbell8560]

The sad thing is the legion of morons who mindlessly believe what they are told are convinced that the petroleum industry is the ONLY one who is greasing up the politicians. BOTH sides are buying politicians.

[@pat5882]

It’s called a cognitive dissonance. Think: Whacked green politicians

[@Diana1000Smiles]

People are such good writers. I feel envy.

[@stevegatzsch667]

MONEY RULES THE WORLD , WHO RULES THE MONEY ?????????????? MOT YOU, NOT ME, NOT THOSE PUPPETS called POLITICIANS , "The Game Is Rigged!" George Carlin on American Dream , kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5a1lWN7f8eeeZI

[@HaroldB-er2wv]

My views for what it’s worth is with a rising population and increased technology and manufacturing, building electric vehicles, solar and wind farms to combat global warming won’t work. Heat records are being broken from year to year. The hottest years on record was 2021, then 2022 was hotter, then 2023 was hotter and 2024 appears to be going even higher. Governments say burning fossil fuels is causing global warming and we must reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Building electric cars, wind and solar farms requires the burning of huge amounts fossil fuels. Refining Oil production is up. USA at the present time is at an all-time high in oil production and consuming over 13 million barrels a day. There appears to be concern in the oil industry if we keep churning out millions of electric cars, especially large EVs, millions of solar panels and wind turbine, will there be enough oil to produce them. Big energy companies are merging as they try to get more production out of the Permian Basin in Texas and in New Mexico. The only way to stop global warming is to bite the bullet and start reducing everything we buy and governments are not making any attempt to encourage this.

[@markl4670]

I only know one person who has an EV. He got it through the Motability Scheme and that is the only way he could have afforded it. Average UK car is 7.5 years old. Most people are worrying about how they will pay their energy bill. The idea that most people will move to EVs in the next few years is laughable.

[@stevehayward1854]

Not laughable, as 7.5 years down the road there will be cheap 2nd hand EV's on the market, the change is already happening, embrace it, PS do you still have your old Nokia phone, I think not. Progress happens and no complaining in the world can stop it, sorry

[@dnlmachine4287]

@@stevehayward1854 A 7.5 year old EV driven conservatively may be a good find. If it can be found at a good price. But most people selling one in good condition with high battery capacity remaining will be asking premium price. A 7.5 year old EV with high mileage/battery use may need a new battery soon. Still may be a good buy, if by that time a replacement battery is a reasonable price. Cheap could be seen as a relative concept, considering numerous factors. Stay gold.

[@RodneyJohnson69]

@@stevehayward1854 I don't buy used batteries for anything else I use everyday.

[@Straightupshooter]

You will have no choice if manufacturers won'd make ICE vehicles any longer.

[@RodneyJohnson69]

@@Straightupshooter at that point, I'm getting a horse.

[@zeligtheodorovich7403]

Some good points. My own experience has been quite positive. I bought my EV a year ago. I chose a ten year old leaf by Nissan. Had $25,000 to spend, but the car cost $10,000 since it was used and had 22,000 miles. The tires had been replaced in 2020, and I had the car thoroughly inspected by two private mechanics. I have had no issues with the car, have never run short of power, and have probably saved at least $2000 in not needing gasoline based on miles driven. I do not have a home charger. My community generates solar power and provides charging stations in several locations. I do mostly local driving. Smooth ride. No noises. No vibration. Lots of heat and ac as needed. What more can I say? I'm just glad I was smart enough to make this purchase.

[@timothykeith1367]

Older Leafs were recommended in the latest issue of Consumer Reports - the annual used car issue. There seems to be an informal hobby around upgrading the Leaf, which could keep them on the road when they are aged

[@DrinkingMidget]

Ya I did the same thing. I hated giving money to the gas companies. My EV uses about $40 a month in power bill. I just got solar put on my house now my car does not use the power company any more.

[@ElonsXiProtocolCadet]

No oil changes either.

[@marcusrowe6754]

@@DrinkingMidget that's 21,600 miles per year in my town at $.10/kwh. Lots of driving. I'm jealous I need solar. That's in my Leaf at 4.5 miles/kwh

[@craiggillett5985]

I’m the same except I bought new, best thing I’ve ever Done personally. Cost me less than a big Mac to run a week. No service charges, no road user tax, no Fuel tax. Everyone I know is now switching. Second hand or new. Helps that (NZ) has a modern grid, over 80% renewable energy, huge government subsidies. Great video, some really relevant points. Still the best thing I’ve done

[@timz7815]

Great video, as a former nuclear submarine operator, Ch.E and energy enthusiast I mainly agree with your discussion. Specifically, if we want to shift to clean energy, we should build Nuclear and invest in Fusion research.

[@encinobalboa]

French nuke power plant program recycles waste which is a real problem in USA. Green dummies in France are opposed to nuke. Clean nuke combined with EV would make a difference.

[@jsanders100]

No thanks

[@encinobalboa]

@@jsanders100 You do realize that French air emissions are so low that she exports clean air to Germany on the prevailing winds?

[@jsanders100]

No, do you remember a place called Chernobyl? Have the French decommissioned any of these power stations yet?

[@timz7815]

@@jsanders100 you are not smart. Nuclear is the safest way to create energy statistically...deaths per unit energy is lowest. It's the cleanest. Chernobyl uses positive temp coefficient of reactivity liquid sodium moderated reactors. The west uses water with a negative coefficient. Russian stuff is not good. Modern installations will use micro reactors and use Thorium. In the future, we will use Fusion of light atoms, where the by product is water.

[@Bluetop-ez8ic]

A study of people living in the centre of New York City who have contracted lung disease ,the majority of them have caught the disease from tyre and brake dust, not from exhaust emissions. A study in London reported 52% of all particle pollution came from tyre and brake wear. 24% came from road and paint markings. Just 15% of emissions came from exhaust of cars, and 10 % from vans and large trucks.

[@dzcav3]

I almost never comment YT videos, but this one one of the best I have ever seen: factual, logical, and non-political. You covered a wide range of material and wove it together in a concise, understandable way. Too many people have tunnel vision and only look at one part of the elephant, but you showed the whole beast. Perhaps one thing you could have added would be the comparison between EV and combustion initial carbon footprints and the breakeven mileage of carbon output, but that requires assumptions about the carbon output of the particular electrical source of the electricity.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Wow, thanks dzcav3. You're right, I could have gone gone into EV vs combustion initial carbon footprints, but fortunately Volvo has already done it for me, and with complete transparency and basis for comparison.

[@tonywilson4713]

@@TheCarGuysTV There's a tragedy in this video. You're absolutely right on most key points and totally off the planet wrong on others. You admitted at the start your not an expert and then proceeded to tell the world to "FK-OFF I'm keeping my collection of cars." - that's so stupid. Your right on most points. I'm an engineer and can explain this stuff better than you ever will. Just stop presenting Bjorn Lomborg (or anyone like him) as if he (or they) knows anything. Him and his FKING economics - just FK-OFF. People really are over that crap. People don't care squat about you and your FK-ING cars. They do care about having a future and are over the economic arguments. There was a great line yelled from the audience at an economist once: "You can't eat an iPad asshole" And don't call me some sort of greenie. That pack of clowns have been just as ridiculous and selfish and arrogant and you Lomborg and others. I really don't give a damn about your cars. And don't spout off about draconian laws you sound like one of those damn American Libertarians howling about their guns. You're right there's more pollution in making ANY NEW CAR than what your damn Ferarri will produce in 20+ years. *BUT ITS NOT ABOUT YOU* its about what we can do. Your right about China, America and Australia (where I'm from). I'd love to see us transition, but people like you wont shut up and get out of the road. And by that I mean the selfish clowns on *BOTH* sides. The selfish greenies can STFU and the selfish coal barons can STFU and get out of the road. This utter FKING garbage that its too big to deal with. IF ITS TOO BIG FOR YOU THEN SHUT UP. If you can't help fix the problem then go wash your car, take a drive, whatever - JUST GET OUT OF THE ROAD. As an engineer its INFURIATING to be told by ignorant economists, business people and howling tree huggers what can't be done. All of you JUST SHUT THE FK-UP and get out of the road and let us do our jobs.

[@sirfer6969]

Yeah I clicked on this thinking I'd be hating, but this piece did a good analysis

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@TheCarGuysTV Lucky you didn't check the latest Tesla environmental report (they produce this frequently!) Their corroborated data shows a cut of of 6,500 miles. No, I didn't miss any zeros, Six thousand five hundred miles to offset the carbon footprint. After that, it's all winning. . Nice try.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@rogerstarkey5390 Enjoy your perfect smug life, Teslaboy. See you in the future.

[@SeanWork]

Yep - I would say one of the worst things when it comes to climate change is simply consumerism. The need for always obtaining brand new stuff. It takes energy to produce and ship anything. Which means carbon emissions. It'd be amazing if people demanded products that lasted a long time. That'd be a huge help. Finally, nuclear power is probably the fastest solution to getting cleaned up quickly. That will take care of industry and transportation.

[@user-qy9tf2im7f]

Nuclear waste is easier to contain than the toxic waste that EV's will generate by disposing of Lithium Batteries. Those who worry about Climate change with any real Earth Science Knowledge don't realize that at one time all our Barrier Island Cities & Towns were once Sand Bars! Miami was in the middle of an Ocean @ one time. I agree that EV's should be a choice and agree with the CARGUYs. Reforesting the Amazon would have more effect on CO2 emissions than banning Fossil Fuels. The Hypocrisy of Climate Change Zealots' like John Kerry flying around in a Private Jet makes me cringe every time they open their mouths and preach how they are saving the World. We are never going to stop China & India and for God's sake they still burn peat in Green Ireland. All we are doing is making our Society Poorer when the majority of the World could care less. Look @ Green Norway that is blessed with good sources of Hydroelectricity, yet the Countries wealth is derived from Fossil Fuel Exports. End the Hypocrisy. Just look at the last Meteorology Studies that found that the increase in Tropical Storms was being cause by less particulates in the Atmosphere. The sane reason to seek alternatives to Fossil Fuels is that they are finite and to perpetuate the Human Race we need to constantly find new sources to produce energy. As someone Educated and Employed in A Green Industry my entire life I learned to tune out the Zealots of Doom 45 years ago. Yes they have been around a long time and none have them have ever had their Prophecies come true.

[@2148aa]

Breeder reactors must be revisited. Spent fuel is the biggest problem not dealt with.

[@user-qy9tf2im7f]

@@2148aa Because commercial reactors were never designed as breeders, they do not convert enough uranium-238 into plutonium to replace the uranium-235 consumed.

[@oecw124]

People used to demand their products lasted. But companies preyed on the weakness of people's vanity. They produced the newest coolest thing rendering older more reliable stuff obsolete.

[@jamesdellaneve9005]

This isn’t existential. China and India won’t change. So West, your coming poverty won’t help. If you are serious go nuclear. Or how about deploying ruminant livestock which greens the desert. This sequesters co2. Even though it’s not a big problem.

[@felipecesar883]

The huge problem with EVS, riight now is mining what we need for the huge lithium batteries. Lithium mining involves the use of large amounts of water and chemicals, which can have negative impacts on the environment. Water pollution, deforestation, and soil degradation are some of the environmental issues associated with lithium mining...which is all bad but what is worse is that the place where you actually can get a good amount of lithium are usually arid and already places with hard acess to water...meaning you will make the life of the people living in there a lot harder by also taking their water.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

If you talk to an EVangelist, apparently none of this is a problem 😂

[@colingenge9999]

If you were concerned about water pollution, then you would be against Fracing which is America’s major source of liquid and gas petroleum products of the last 10 years. Fracking has destroyed almost every groundwater body it’s gone through.

[@tylerdurden3722]

@@colingenge9999 So you're saying we should just keep exporting our pollution to poorer countries where its easier for corporations to not be regulated at all? Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. I'm not as heartless you to find solice in that. Id rather suffer my own pollution than force others who are already suffering to suffer my pollution on top of that.

[@colingenge9999]

@@tylerdurden3722 Firstly, Tesla has more US content than any Ford or GM. if you were concerned about the World, you’d never drive an ICE car that does over $100,000 in environmental damage over its life. Roughly $7 per liter of gasoline burned. ICE produced near a kilo of CO2 per mile!

[@Lucinda-zr9su]

Such as the French mining lithium in the African nation of Niger. The country is pretty much ruined for farming. Of course the French want no part of Niger immigrants coming to their country because they can't farm in their own country.

[@wbr474]

It's not cars hurting our environment it's massive deforestation. We need to come up with a better, more earth friendly, AFFORDABLE building material. I agree with wood farms that's ok but deforestation of the massive natural forests we have, is basically killing the earth's lungs. There's nothing wrong with going into a healthy forest and clearing out the dead fall and dead standing that's just smart forest management.

[@SopronGuy]

Your lack of understanding of the issue is breath-taking! 1) Deforestation occurs mostly in the tropics to clear arable land, while your building material comes almost exclusively from sustainably managed temperate forests. 2) Wood used in buildings is actually a very significant carbon sink, trapping atmospheric carbon for many years, as opposed to just a few years if left to decompose naturally. Certifiably sustainable wood and wood products actually have a huge _negative_ carbon footprint.

[@wbr474]

@SopronGuy Exactly, what you just said proved my point. Yes, most deforestation does occur in the tropics. Mostly in the amazon rainforest where the majority of the lungs of our planet exist. It's causes erosion, soil nutrients to go into the waterways which harms the equatic life let alone defeats the purpose of sustainable farming where you don't have to use up your resources and move on to burn new areas to grow, therefore leaving a depleated landscape that sometimes never recovers especially in our lifetime. So if you dont like to breathe an oxygen rich atmosphere, I suppose your theory wouldn't be a problem. You obviously didn't read all of my comment, because I had a positive stance on sustainable tree farming.

[@cbonz7734]

I have a small EV but not for the reasons one might expect. I was spending over $465 a month to fuel my 5.7L Hemi in urban driving. Now I spend less than $50 for the electricity to run the EV. For traveling we use a sedan that we rarely use. I was not even thinking about saving the environment, because I agree it's pretty much hopeless, rather keeping my money out of the pockets of the oil companies and in mine instead.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

It’s a fair point and one I support - hence “freedom of choice”

[@justaname109]

I’m just curious why you weren’t using the sedan you rarely use, for the urban driving if you were looking to save on fuel cost?

[@cbonz7734]

@@justaname109 We sold the Hemi and kept the sedan. I was using the Hemi jeep to explore the mountains, I now rent instead.

[@efallser123]

So what would happen to your fuel bill if you went from your gas guzzler to for an example Nissan versa. Would you save in fuel? SMH I bet the ev you have now is no bigger than a compact car ? Right? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you drive a smaller car you spend less money on fuel. Whenever I see these type of examples of how ev are better I always laugh how that makes sense to anyone. If I drive an 18Wheeler in urban area and switch to an compact car will I save on fuel. Or does that only work if I switch to an ev.

[@brenna1340]

@@efallser123 Gas costs differ rather dramatically depending upon where you live, whether your government is subsidizing and or taxing it, etc. It's MUCH cheaper to drive an ev where I am, and that's accounting for a comparison of same sized vehicles.

[@joseCalderon1976]

My biggest problem with new EV vehicles in the US (and even the regular new cars) is that they are WAY TO EXPENSIVE! I want to see a reliable small EV here in the US for like $15k out the door. I'm not buying something more expensive new EV or regular car for more than that. I don't want car mortgage! Period. Thanks for the video.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Agree entirely

[@changinglive7]

Agreed, if a solution is not affordable then it is not a solution.

[@sh-hg4eg]

They want to price you out of driving, just as they want to price you out of eating meat. They discuss this stuff openly.

[@MMM18092]

Where I live, politicians have changed the rules of the game so even a 50% higher purchase price for the EV is offset by lower ownership costs because driving an ICE vehicle is so expensive. EVs also have extremely low depreciation here for the same reason. It might not help climate change but it sure has improved the air quality in my city.

[@wynder1472]

@@MMM18092 the "depreciation" of every EV is built in: the price of a replacement battery will make these cars the first "disposable" cars in history (well, there was the YUGO...). Beginning soon (real soon...), these EVs will start to fill salvage yards the world over, as soon as the current (and likely only) owner sees a quote for battery replacement. Think of it: how many people replace the ENGINES on their hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles, and after just 5-7 years? EVs (coal-fired) cars are a joke. No, they're a SCAM perpetrated on soft-minded, ignorant owners steeped in guilt but short on brains.

[@Ingline-wg9lh]

Research carried out by scientists in the UK shows that over the past 30 years, exhaust emissions from UK vehicles have fallen by 90% owing to stricter standards being enforced. As a result, the particles from tyres, brakes and roads have become the main cause of pollution from traffic, presenting a new frontier in efforts to reduce levels of dirty air. “Tyre wear particles pollute the environment, the air we breathe, and the water run-off from roads,” said Dr Zhengchu Tan, at Imperial’s Department of Mechanical Engineering. “Even if all our vehicles eventually become powered by electricity instead of fossil fuels, we will still have harmful pollution from vehicles because of tyre wear.” So will electric vehicles being heavier, create more tyre and brake dust than ICE vehicles? Tests reported found that in the most modern cars, almost 2,000 times more particle pollution could be produced by tyre wear and brake dust than was pumped out of their exhausts. Lithium-ion batteries, common in EVs, add significant weight and affect the vehicle's weight distribution. This increased weight puts extra strain on the tires, particularly during cornering and braking. As the car turns, the tires experience lateral forces that wear down the tread more quickly. According to a 2020 study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), EVs emit more brake dust than gas-powered vehicles, due to the substantial weight of their battery packs. “Wear and tear from brakes, tires and road surfaces will soon overtake car exhaust fumes as the leading source of fine particles released into the air by road traffic,” read the OECD report. “Heavy electric vehicles with long-distance batteries could compound the problem even as they slash emissions from engine exhaust.” Although EVs don’t use their friction brakes as much as gas-powered vehicles, regenerative breaking seemingly isn’t enough to offset the weight of the battery pack.

[@Jamessansome]

You are probably referring to tyre wear in mass. Tyres wear producing a range of particle sizes. Only the smaller pm2.5 particles are harmful as this is what becomes airborne and can be inhaled. Also worth noting that BEV'a use regenerative braking so brake wear is significantly reduced. The cleaner the grid gets the cleaner your BEV becomes. You can see the effect of brake wear on light coloured buildings particularly when next to train stations. High levels of brake dust particles fall on buildings and stain facades. This video is mostly misinformation with very questionable statements and frankly terrible sources/graphs.

[@natercc2299]

If those EV activist are truly concerned about the environment, they should live like the Amish.

[@RussianBot382]

It’s nice to see this analysis, being pro nuclear is a serious positive takeaway. People who are anti nuclear have no shot of moving away from coal

[@oystla]

So…. While Nuclear had not seen much Growth in TWH produced the last decade, solar and Wind had had an Extreme growth and are now as big as Nuclear, from a joke 10 years ago😉

[@slavenarkaimovski3897]

KZbin TROY REED,Their is such thing as the electric car that don't need to be recharged,and it was invented by the Troy Reed.The engine was electromagnetic engine,and car was working without battery,on free,and perpetual energy.So next time when someone say to you that electric cars are useless,then you ask them how much they are payed to lie.

[@brianforrester9670]

Natural gas is moving us away from Coal already.

[@treborheminway3814]

New nuclear tech burns the longest half life waste to produce by products that while still nasty, need only hundreds of years of safe containment, not many thousands, all while slashing the total stored volumes. Nuclear is very important to CC, and the new modular designs are much more cost effective.

[@sanders555]

Nuclear generates less revenue and it takes longer to recoup the investment. Without government support it isn't going to happen, and ours is bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. Yay capitalism.

[@hagerty1952]

9:05 I've been driving my 1974 Alfa GTV for 46 years (47 in August) and it has 639,000 miles on it (well over one million km). I use this "minimum carbon footprint" argument all the time.

[@springer-qb4dv]

Yes my econobox car is 30 years old and still going strong. It's practically brand new compared to yours. LOL Gasoline cars will last far longer than any EV because they are maintainable and repairable with modest amount of equipment and skill. On the other hand, EVs stuffed to gills with high tech and zillion lines of compute code is nothing more than an appliance, and will be worthless as soon as cost of reviving the unrepairable rube goldberg machine becomes greater than the residual value.

[@flouisbailey]

Another reason good used cars are now over priced. Was it the 1970 when cars started getting green with choking emissions control and decreased fuel economy and performance. But they were cleaner, sure.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

@@springer-qb4dv And what do you do when your $20k dollar battery craps out after a decade?

[@xanthoptica]

It's too bad you have your "minimum carbon footprint" argument exactly backwards. The carbon emissions from a gasoline vehicle are almost all fuel (rather than production) over its lifetime. EVs do result in greater CO2 emissions during production, but with realistic estimates, even a 100 kWh battery vehicle is already lower-carbon after roughly 2 years of normal driving. Even replacing your 1974 vehicle with an efficient modern gas car would emit less carbon in a short amount of time. Want to see the actual numbers? Check it out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIPLpZyGmsuJsK8

[@shorty5346]

Wow and I thought I was the only one that runned my Toyota carina 2 1989 at over 250,000 miles on it drive every day but these days I learned that theres no mechanics around that knows how to fix old cars it's all electronics these days

[@daveedson8607]

Thank you for your presentation of the facts regarding energy and EV's. I purchased a Bolt over a year ago because I got a great deal on it, the lack of regular maintenance, the reliability, the cost of gas and regular maintenance, and it fit my needs. I've actually been told by most of my relatives that they would NEVER buy an EV, and they assume I've been brainwashed by treehuggers. I was told I was the reason gas prices are so high and accused of being an elitist because they could not afford an EV. I explained I bought it because it was economical to do so. I previously owned 3 hybrids which was my major influence in purchasing the EV. It is amazing, I also love ICE vehicles and am a self-proclaimed car nut.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

There’s nothing wrong with buying an EV provided you are doing it with your eyes open and don’t use it as a pious platform.

[@glennchambers8546]

P,

[@glennchambers8546]

@@TheCarGuysTV l0i

[@theforce5191]

Wow, no offense but you're surrounded by weak minded individuals. I stay away from family who's been toxic in the past or if they have a victim mentality. Good luck out there.

[@B_Machine]

Great job walking your own path! There's so much stigma around "treehuggers." It's unfortunate.

[@Ingline-wg9lh]

Can anyone actually name a product or item that wasn’t produced or transported by using Fossil Fuel. Please reply if you know something that fossil fuel wasn't used for it’s existence.

[@RfromG-bd4fb]

A baby

[@mikeyb1453]

The part about driving cars in to the ground really hits for me... proud last owner of all my vehicles.. they just don't build umm like they used to..I prefer old junk

[@warrenpuckett4203]

My old polluter, if replaced by a EV would mean a lot of fuel would go into making that EV. That total fuel used to make the EV would run the old polluter for 10 more years. It also is a 18 year old 5,000lb SUV with 200,000 miles on it. It can be recycled to make another Belchfire I-6. But with one problem. I-6s are not made for SUVs anymore. They last too long. It is better to use a more expensive maypop before 200,000 miles turbo 4 banger. Also not rebuildable.

[@watercooled8105]

Californian here, motor-head (US version) which includes “petrol” and battery. Love both; use both for different occasions. Are we still allowed to say both are “fun”? Going solar-CA power outages suck. Most of our politicians are (uh) lacking…common sense. I think most of us spend our time just trying to get through the day (month, year) and although interested, don’t consider the big picture. Great video-thank you-

[@RoniMogy]

Small minded person

[@watercooled8105]

@@RoniMogyGet used to it-there’s a whole planet full of us who could care less about virtue signaling or politics…

[@NLM1000]

I own a Tesla. Love it and will probably stay an EV driver. I agree that the government should not force EV’s or subsidize them. In fact EV’s are not practical for many drivers. I can drive my wife’s gas powered car when my EV is not practical for a given trip.

[@ms-jl6dl]

EV's have their charm but they are not environmental saviours in any way. Their forced sales will damage the mobility of working class who buy cash and second hand.And to use one properly one needs house and the garage. Plus subsidising rich is moraly disgraceful. But if I could afford it,one of my cars would be EV.

[@hulkhatepunybanner]

*Please stop saying "EV." It's just a car and you're just a driver. Anyways, most people only drive 40 miles a day.*

[@hulkhatepunybanner]

@@ms-jl6dl *No such thing as "forced sales" of electric cars. The automakers were already on their way to making electric cars when the government asked them what year to tell the public. It's a private-public partnership.*

[@thecasualatvguy617]

They pollute a ton more to make those batteries is the problem.

[@sahhull]

@@hulkhatepunybanner on average I drive 150 miles per day. I hired an EV van.. Had to give it back after 2 weeks because it was costing me customers. Not enough range when loaded for work, sketchy and expensive public charging. Charging queues. I has wasting 4 hours per day charging the thing.

[@Bluetop-ez8ic]

Australia seems to be losing its sunny days. Almost every day along the east coast is getting more cloud cover. Are other countries experiencing this. There are some scientists saying giant solar farms can cause an increase in cloud cover.

[@Al.j.Vasquez]

This is why, in part, i love Toyota, they refuse to launch a whole fleet of new EV cars, it's smart to stick to hybrid and make use of all of the energy at your hands. Also, if you have been a tech nerd for the past 15 years like I've been, you're well informed on how incredibly difficult is the current and future state of rechargeable batteries, specially when a single car can take up as much as thousand of phones.

[@craigme2583]

Toyota will be 100% electric within 20 years

[@matthewstettner3465]

What makes you think this? They are also working on hydrogen.

[@Al.j.Vasquez]

@@matthewstettner3465 Yes, but that's not exactly the same as electric cars that work with lithium ion batteries, and Hydrogen fuel cells make absolutely no sense in countries that don't have a surplus of renewable energy to dump on the process of making the hydrogen.

[@sigint99]

@@Al.j.Vasquez Hydrogen is easily extracted from blue gas which many nations already have a steady supply of. Fuel cell eVs are a smarter alternative as they are safer, cleaner and don't load up any electrical infrastructure grid. Hyundai, BMW, Toyota and others know all this which is why they have invested in the technology That poser musk keeps telling lies about fuel cell technology for obvious reasons.

[@motleydude73]

@@vicjay1972 Not even close. They will still be making petrol cars and people will be buying them. Not everyone has fallen for the EV lie! They have a good range of hybrids and most see that as a better option. Full EV is like cutting off a leg.

[@paultomlin6075]

I drive LPG Astras..factory made...now I am finding sourcing LPG difficult. Thank you Shell for pulling all LPG pumps all over the UK

[@jimmyhackers8980]

shell has destroyed the entire nation of nigeria for profit......dont be a tool

[@SeattlePioneer]

I presume you are aware that LPG (propane) is just another product refined from oil, like gasoline?

[@ytj22]

@@SeattlePioneer What about his comment makes you think he isn't aware?

[@SeattlePioneer]

@@ytj22

[@playertobenamedlater6812]

I completely agree that expanding nuclear production would help. I think you skipped the main benefit of EVs however, efficiency. Yes the electricity is still produced by mostly fossil fuels, but EVs travel about 4 times the distance as gas vehicles per energy unit. Exchanging 4 gallons of petrol in an automobile tank for 1 gallon in a power plant is the benefit that is driving the EV push. Just because EVs won't solve the problem by themselves does not mean we should not take the step in the right direction.

[@dougmcdougall778]

lol!

[@Bellathebear777]

Joey buydung loves you! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂. Remember, get boosted 4 times a year! 🤪

[@tSp289]

Decent video on the whole but a couple of points (quantifying environmental impacts is most of my job): - Electricity mostly comes from fossil fuels, but it matters how you burn it. Electrifying heat and transport WILL save massively on emissions, mostly heat but transport is a realtively easy win. - Grid capacity needs to roughly double to support this. That's fine. It has happened before, it will happen again and there are phased plans in place for it. - EVs help the grid. IF they have V2G, they can be used for peak load distribution, reducing the amount of capacity required by being little battery banks. - No one is saying they will save the planet, except for people who have no idea what they're talking about. These people generally have the most to say. - Running an old petrol car until it dies is not better for the planet. The upfront emissions (manufacture and materials) are a relatively small part of a car's lifetime emissions. In-use emissions are the vast majority, and petrol and diesel are jsut way worse. - Your section on renewables uses a lot of tabloid talking points that are only true if you don't compare them to what they replace. Renewables have already allowed us to hugely reduce our emissions, especially in the UK. No one is proposing a grid of all one type of production. Give us more credit for thinking this stuff through. You correctly point out that electricity cost is linked to gas. In fact nearly all of our gas is our own, but because we have a privatised energy system, our gas price gets set indirectly by Russia. The same is true for petrochemicals, which is a great argument for renewables and electrification. - You also don't try to dump it all on China and India, good. You hear that a lot and it's a sulky nationalistic cop-out. It does mostly come from them, but if we refused to do anyhting til they did, they would never do anything, because why should they if we don't? As you pointed out, industry is a massive emisster, and most of their industry is for export, so it depends how you define the scope who's responsible for some of those emissions. - Nothing we BUY will save the planet. We can only reduce the amount of damage we do to it by not buying something worse that has the same function i.e. if you buy an EV, you didn't buy an ICE car so you've saved 40-60% of its lifetime emissions right there. More as the grid continues to decarbonise. - The reason there's so much focus on cars is not because of their importance, it's because we all use them, they're fun and useful and we want them. We care less about ternary concrete and demand side management, because it's not a shiny thing that goes fast. They're a thing we can be sold. It's great that you and others are now looking at our emissions, even if it's to build an argument against technologies you don't want, but please don't be misled. Hydrogen may be useful for mining and bulk transport at some point in the future but it is not and probably never will be an alternative to EVs, for half a hundred good reasons. If you want to save the planet, stop buying stuff you don't need and go restore some land damaged by indusrial agriculture and overconsumption.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Thanks for your comments. I don't agree with many of them, but I would die to defend your right to have them.

[@79blustone]

I love this channel and you guys are the best. I'm a petrol head and don't own an E.V. I will say there are a couple of things wrong in your expression. Cobalt is used in the refining process of the petrol and diesel I use just like you guys, Its burned up in the process of combustion cycle never to be recovered. More cobalt is used in refining fuel then in an E.V battery. We cannot use the cobalt argument to demonise E.Vs. Lithium is one of the most common minerals found anywhere on Earth (mostly as salt deposits and are easily extracted). Ev batteries have a second life in battery storage- in vast solar arrays, people's garages and on the grid to balance the supply. Once batteries have ended life they are recyclable there are many companies now that can recover upto 74% now and 90% of the materials in the future. That includes Cobalt, lithium and other minerals in its construction, to be reused in new batteries. So the cycle of above ground (already mined substances) can perpetuate. The amount of energy to make and transport oil then the amount of energy to turn that into fuel out weights its efficiency. Our engines hemerage so much energy in heat loss its unreal. Battery is more efficient in that respect. Solar charging cars are the future they should be at the forefront and be pushed more the just EV battery cars alone, they will take demand off the grid and could contribute to green carbon negative energy. Why aren't they doing this?? Companies like Lightyear One and the Sonos solar charging cars are the future so you are not reliant on infrastructure to charge your car, you can just leave it outside even in dark winter days you'll still put decent charge in. I don't think demonising petrol and diesel is the right thing, they have their place for sure. I think we're are at a point in society where we have an energy crisis because of overpopulation. Overpopulation IS the problem, less people less pollution, less traffic jams and demand on social services. I think petrol cars are generally sensibly priced and affordable unlike E.Vs which are a p*ss take. If governments and companies want to make difference and collaborate then they would drop EV car prices to deal with the reduction of CO2. But EVs are a fashionable accessory for all the rich to make them feel smug about. So I feel for the Petrol head and the person who is trying to make a difference but can't afford too. I can see both sides of the argument. I've just bought a Yaris GR like Damien 👍

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Fantastic comments and info, thanks mate

[@alexdossor8156]

Absolutely correct! Personally I thought the video was very one sided. Alright, he’s clearly done research in to statistics to give accurate figures on pollution by head/country etc but lots of his ‘facts’ he’s just pulled out his arse. I’m a huge petrol head and absolutely believe we can continue to use petrol and diesel for years to come, I also believe that EVs have their own place to. I work in the electricity industry and am seeing examples everywhere of batteries being recycled for storage, turbine blades being reused. These are facts he’s failed to cover because it doesn’t support his argument.

[@4literv6]

Fantastic comment. 10-15% of all energy is expended just to find more fossil fuels. It's estimated that 40% of all global emissions come from just transporting and refining fossil fuels. 10 barrels of crude go in a refinery only 7 barrels of useable refined petroleum comes out. Not to mention the water and cobalt as you said plus massive amounts of electricity used at just the refinery level. He neglected to mention anything about the impact fossil fuel burners have outside of electrics either. Like oil changes for one. Here in the U.S. we do over 420,000,000+ oil changes annually. The waste steel alone from that is over 160,000 tons! It's estimated 27,000 small oil change only businesses are in use. On average it takes 1gallon of used motor oil in to be recycled using more energy and water of course. Which results in just 2.5 quarts of re sellable oil. Right now it's estimated over 60% of all used motor oil isn't even recycled here in the U.S. alone. How about rare earths in catalytic converters? Which get burned up and tossed. Iridium in spark plugs? Which get tossed to. What about engine air filters? Several hundred million of those every year end up in landfills. Belts&hoses which wear out on ice? Main drive belts? Fuel filters? The list is nearly endless for ice. 🤐 I'd know I worked as a manager in a repair&service shop. And we only serviced about 15,000 car's a year. The amount of waste despite recycling all the used oil, most of the oil filters. All the used tires, all disc&drum brake pads, most rotors&calipers we replaced, all batteries we replaced. Was truly staggering. That's just the waste for 15,000 or so cars when over 280,000,000 are registered in the us alone. 🤔

[@79blustone]

@@4literv6 Wow, my thoughts about actual waste from automotive service is staggering. I think here in the UK- speaking to one of the waste oil truck drivers- the waste oil is used in nuclear power stations, the information wasn't particularly clear on where and why. Its all got to go somewhere. Fossil fuel vehicles do create more waste then non- I.C.E vehicles. Also, tyres, which all vehicles use are a nightmare to recycle and I've seen a site in Southampton area that's got stacks of tyres next to a field full of sheep, they've been there for years.... not great seeing both so close together. There are only a finite amount of atoms on our planet and we need to look after them! Sounds crazy but if we don't- the future gold mines could be our land fill sites..... I think about worst, better and best strategy- reuse rather then recycle, recycle then throw away. Throw away but do I really have to.... I think there is a larger power in play with regards to our energy needs, bitcoin, dollars and pound coins will be the thing of the past and Kilowatts of energy or even kcal will be the next to invest and trade in. There's a huge energy rush on as we pull on the strings of which country has the most resources of energy. I'd love to be energy independent, have a bladeless wind generator, solar and battery storage system with enough power to distribute to centre heating systems first, then hot water tank, electric vehicle, garage battery storage and then sell the rest of my electricity to my local area for a fraction of what they are being charged now. I genuinely believe solar powered transportation is king. Solar powered every everywhere would be ideal, its already being done in places, paints and ways of hiding solar panels. Storing energy is more of a problem. Using solar to pump water in a reservoir, then using turbines as the water flows down hill at night is clever and that's the way forward. We need to think of a solution to overpopulation too as this is the white elephant in the room that nobody wants to deal with. We are all sources of taxation from our governments and they don't want to stop that, that's our biggest problem to solve as our planet struggles with capacity... Lots to think about, but back to the point, until Solar charging battery electric cars are a viable option and are fun to drive, I'm sticking with a Toyota Yaris GR four wheel drive turbo. I just don't think price parity is there yet especially when Elon keeps adding an extra 10 grand on the price of a new Tesla...plus, its not solar charging 😉

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@alexdossor8156 I can assure you that non of my facts were pulled out of my arse.

[@michaelspiotta927]

Fantastic episode! It forced me to subscribe. I love automobiles with all my heart! EV’s are cool, but I’ve been saying they’re worse for our environment than petrol vehicles for years. And for all the reasons you pointed out. Thanks for posting this. Excellent presentation skills mate!

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Welcome aboard, Michael

[@riverstun]

So what WILL save humanity from climate catastrophe, Einstein?

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@riverstun You didn’t watch till the end then? Since the film wasn’t about how to solve global warming, there only a few ideas there, but there are plenty of things we can do to help improve the environment, whether you believe in global warming or not.

[@D_Rogers]

The video had some points but... An EV running on energy generated by fossil fuels, is still cleaner, because an EV is heat efficient with its fuel and an ICE engine isn't... Near 90% effic vs

[@chadloosemore6627]

@@riverstun Number one would be to not buy into the political and media driven hype. This hype propels too many scientists to double and even triple the amount of CO2 emissions into their climate models predicting the outrageous doom and gloom scenarios to gain new funding, either by governments or individual donations. With China, India, and some other countries building many new nuclear plants, there is no chance of annual CO2 levels going up in future years. And you would think the failed doomsday climate change predictions over the last 50 years would cause more skeptics, but instead it has enabled new legislation which will only hurt the poor without creating real change of emissions.

[@bradadkins5606]

Who else thinks cash for clunkers was just part of the plan to get rid of all the non computer cars without GPS and destroy all the parts to keep our stuff running

[@guillaumepilon8167]

As i always says almost nobody is or can be truely clean in term of polution. You need to think about all factor, there's way better ways to be greener other rhen running an ev like not buying cheap made in china stuff, stop going on useless cruise ship, reducing airplane flow etc... If you worry about the polution so much you should look at your life style and what you buy/eat/wear

[@SebinMatthew]

Unfortunately the real steps to save the planet will be taken only after catastrophe strikes.

[@bingosunnoon9341]

A world wide economic collapse is our best bet for slowing global warming seeing how nothing is being done. We can do it the easy way or the hard way. We are choosing the hard way.

[@p.jonaitis7952]

What catastrophe you absolute nut. Start effing reading what real scientists say about it. I mean the ones who haven't been bought and paid.

[@iMmunashe]

Gotta love humans right?

[@ALIENdrifter66]

You can't save a rock

[@billstetler6769]

Man can’t save the planet. If it’s being destroyed it’s because the creator is allowing it

[@shi3abooks]

Last time I checked, nuclear power was the cleanest form of energy. Even cleaner than solar and wind. Here in the US, most big cities require a nuclear power plant.

[@richardcoram1562]

The Dirty part of nuclear power is the waste, and theres tons of that waste buried deep in mountains and abandoned mines that are stored in aging compromised containers. This waste is active for up to 3 million years, so you might think it's a clean source of energy until an earthquake brings down that mountain storage facility . Hopefully before we go to full nuclear power we need a waste dump on Mars, rather than man caves. AI ROBOTS could maintain the waste dumps.

[@gundammakerworldbreaker6133]

@John Danson It still is. shut up about the bs.

[@JBinFL]

@John Danson So an accident caused by antiquated, crappy engineering, and another caused by a company not responding to warnings that its facility had an Achilles heel in the event of an edge incident and "500" others with no real impact. Emotion isn't the way out of our problem.

[@TheSilverShadow17]

@John Danson The technology that maintains and regulates nuclear reactors is improving massively every passing year. Compared to the last several decades a modern day reactor is thousands of times less likely to meltdown than an older one built in let's say the 50s and 60s. The best solution for the entire planet is going Nuclear, and nature has done proved it over 2 million years ago

[@TheSilverShadow17]

@@JBinFL Some of the things people believe about Nuclear energy is more often than not false info, but when you look at the actual statistics, the chance of death from Nuclear power is at at extremely low 0.00007% therefore proving how safe it is compared to wind solar and coal power. It's our all out best option for an energy resource period. And that it would take over 60 gigatons of coal just to match the energy output of a Nuclear reactor.

[@TimothytheTooth]

Why didn’t you mention the impact of mining lithium?

[@TheCarGuysTV]

One for another day. But don’t worry, EVangelists say it’s fine

[@BGfootballfan]

Do you think ICE manufacturers find the drivetrains, exhaust system and petrol randomly growing on trees?

[@hhds113]

@@BGfootballfan At least they don't destroy the environment like mining for lithium and using child labor to do so.

[@scrapmanindustries]

@@BGfootballfan you can actually shred your old car to make a new one. I mean you’re still gonna need to find some brand new materials but most of gas and diesel cars gets recycled. Some small bits goes into the fluff pile and taken to landfill but it’s mostly just door panels and seat covers which you get out of EV’s also.

[@Brian-bc8ds]

8:10

[@User24x]

Public transport, bikeable & walkable cities are the answer.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

To city pollution...

[@michaellinke6448]

I was curious about "dirty" electicity and put together a spreadsheet, using the CO2 per kWh for Electric generation methods, and the power source breakdown for each state. I compared a 120 MPGe Chevy Bolt against a 35 MPG Chevy Malibu. The only state in the US where the Electic Bolt produced more CO2 per mile was West Virginia, where the Electric car made 5% more CO2 than the gas car. Hawaii come close, at only 5% reduction in carbon per mile. NY/NJ, where I'm at, the electric vehicle is a 75% reduction. This was based on 2021 figures for electricity generation from the Nuclear Energy Institute , and will probably change over time. (Reposted cause I think the last comment got auto-modded because it included a url)

[@michaellinke6448]

The chances are, if you live in a state where nobody wants an electric car, you're probably already in a state whose electricity is dirty enough that conving you to buy an electric car won't make any serious environmental impact, or at least the CO2 benefit will be outweighed by polition inherent in the battery ecosystem. Where all the lefties who love EVs already live, there's a lot less coal, and significantly less fossil in general.

[@eddeis189]

You just simply explained, that only in one state out 52 and only 5 % more CO2 was emmited in West Virginia with an EV vs regular petrol car. Where i live in north Germany we are charging 100% renewables almost always and its clearly stated on the charger.Germany electricity's comes coal about 30% but you can choose where you wanna charge your car.So basically everything this KZbinr tries to fact it is obnoxious and stupid, hope this guy learns something 😂.and comments here are comming from ppl like in that movie "don't look up". 😅

[@TB-up4xi]

Something is wrong with your math an EV produces less CO2 even when charged 100% from coal fired power. Firstly I guess you only used the tailpipe emissions right? add another 50% for the exploration, extraction, refinement, transportation and storage of gas for the Chevy Malibu. The CO2 per kwh includes the full exploration to emissions cycle for the electricity generation method. Apples v Oranges as they say. Let's get to that in a minute. The 2023 Chevy Malibu has an official average CO2 emissions rate of 292 grams per mile from the tailpipe. Add the rest of the fuel cycle this is 438g. There is no state in the US where a 120 Mpge EV produces more CO2 than than a Malibu. Even in West Virginia at 1.95 pounds (884g) per kWh = 252g per mi v 438g for the Malibu.

[@EGH666]

@@eddeis189 i live in quebec where pretty much 100% of our electricity comes from hydro dams. i'll take my electric car. I actually have a hybrid right now. last 30 liter fill up i did 1600km. right now i have 720km and i just lost the first notch on my gas gauge. it costs less than 1$ to charge for 30km (6 to 9 cents per kwh).

[@gregcollins3404]

I maintain that an EV uses less electricity than a gas car uses to pump, refine, transport and sell the oil it uses.

[@Comanchelords]

This was great. We get warned here in Australia to not run our air conditioning to high in summer as the grids can’t handle it and crashes. How the hell is everyone going to charge all these cars. Especially in summer. This is going to be hilarious 😂

[@TheCarGuysTV]

It sure is

[@gpsfinancial6988]

Why don't you use solar to run the AC?

[@trevorsoh2130]

Australia has such low EV numbers it will probably have negligible impact. But batteries will probably be part of the answer in the future. Most states are preparing for large ev uptake in the coming years. Almost all states have been experimenting with utility scale and micro scale inner suburban battery storage ever since the long term success of the Tesla big battery in SA - which has stabilised the grid, prevented blackouts and saves the govt hundreds of millions of dollars (paid itself off years ago). Teslas already using VPP virtual power plant tech to link all power wall (consumer batteries) to provide a virtual utility scale battery in one state of the US. It’s been pretty successful so far.

[@Just_Chuck_It]

This is because the governments pushing this nonsense literally think YOU are stupid. Let that sink in............

[@gpsfinancial6988]

@Bobcat B EVs already run in winter in Canada. Canada is already quite well set up with even traditional cars with engine warmers and in car heating running off the electrical network when parked in the garage.

[@Tricklarock]

I have been saying this since the HUGE push to 'go electric' began! Just 'cuz your car isn't spewing CO2/CO and diesel smoke doesn't mean that the plant you got your electricity from isn't!!!

[@Emceepe]

Why do you suppose everyone doesn’t have a generator at home for their main power supply? Could it possibly be significantly cheaper and more efficient to produce power in bulk rather than having individual power plants in every house and car?

[@italianjob4947]

That plant is already producing electricity, so it's still better to remove cars that are spewing out fumes.

[@Emceepe]

@tipihedroncollider you seem to be grossly confused with the differences between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

[@Emceepe]

@tipihedroncollider solar panels are made of the 2 most recycled materials on Earth. Glass and aluminum. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@Emceepe]

@tipihedroncollider your ignorance doesn’t make things true and you know it. Otherwise you’d provide some shred of evidence as to why glass and aluminum can’t be recycled.

[@frankmarkovcijr5459]

I have had my Sportster for 25 years and 400,000 miles on the original engine. I have had my Triumph Tr-6 with a hard tail and magneto for 40 years. That's being green.

[@bretzel30000]

There are some points i want to comment on: Cobalt: the new EV batteries no longer use cobalt but instead they use Ironphosphate Not enough Lithium: The issue is not hat we don't have enough Lithium at all, but that we have limited exploitable sources for our plans going forward. There are multiple factors that put this problem into perspektive: - Crude Oil is also becomming more expensive to mine as time goes on. - old batteries can be recycled when the price for lithium is sufficiently high - Lithium is not the only element that can be used, there are also plans to use sodium. Charging EV with Hydrocarbon Power (Emits lots of CO2): Eventhough this might be problematic in the short term, it is a good investment into the future because we then decouple the Transportation from hydrocarbon. And as Green Power becomes more abundant we can then charge those EVs with it. Some Countries don't have enough Green Energy: As you have pointed out, a lot of countries are dependent on fossil fuel for their energy needs. With Photovoltaic these countries can produced at least part of their electrical power, the rest needs to be imported from other countries, the same way they now imported fossil fuels. Hydrogen vs. Battery: Battery powered Cars are simply more efficient then hydrogen powered cars. The reason for that is, you need to convert green electrical energy into hydrogen which is only 60% efficient, then you need to convert the hydrogen back into electricity in the car which is also roughly 60% efficient. Battery powered EVs are far better than that with an overall efficieny of 80%. Also the fueling of an H2 fueled car is very dangerous and laborious because you need to pre condition the H2 gas before you can fuel the car a process which loks up the fuel pump for a couple of minutes. The maintainance of H2 Cars is also very expensive, therefore H2 powered EVs are really not economically viable and it shows, there is almost no H2 Refueling infrastructure being built whilst the Electrical Recharing station are proliferating exponentially.

[@mrsmerily]

Even if the first problems have been solved as it is said in the video the cars are the smallest part of CO2, especially if you take out tranportation trucks which still need to use some other sort of way for power travelling 1000s kms in a day. Same time even for privet users it only makes sense to use it in city untill the cars battary capaticity becomes higher with one charging. Same time the countries what would need the most to improve the city enviroment are too poor or unwilling to do it and usually their electricity is not clean at all. Then we come to so called "clean energy" which has its own problems in itself... it can be renewable but is it green when you take in recyceling process. The only solution would be to start to use CO2 as energy in itself and everything else becomes mow point all together.

[@frozengroundhog3543]

This is how an elitist would answer. Besides the point that cars are only a small part of the problem. Everything in this response is a half truth and requires more money. Why is it that the only way to go green is to spend more money? I work in a factory. Most of the people here are living paycheck to paycheck. The inflation is killing them. They can't afford new cars. They can't afford green energy. So the poor people in developing countries get a pass but hardworking Americans get the shaft. China will not stop using fossil fuels, nor will Russia, India, all of Africa or most of South America. The middle east will not stop pumping oil. We are regulating ourselves into a third world country. Forget EV cars as any kind of solution. Focus on industry. Consume less goods. Make products that can be repaired. The three R's of environmentalism have been Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. People totally ignore the first two which are exponentially more important than the last. I've had the same cell phone for six years. Imagine if the whole world did that!

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@frozengroundhog3543 "Can't afford green energy"? The commercial "strike price" for new green energy is +/- £39 per MWh. Nuclear? Try £92 per MWh "Natural" Gas .... Do you need to ask? It was already high before "Russia". Don't ask "why is green energy expensive?" Ask why there isn't MORE being built.

[@JuicyLeek]

EV production techniques are in their infancy, and can only improve, become more streamlined, and more efficient. This video misses the point entirely. People buy Teslas because they like the car, not because they want to save the planet. If I really cared about the environment, I’d never get on a plane and instead eat cabbage all day on my bicycle.

[@esm7708]

My thoughts exactly. I found myself wincing through sections of this video.

[@aaat2011]

Love your videos on watches, cars, and now scientific/political discussion. You’re truly a gifted communicator. I wish you would expand your channel to talk about other things, because you’re really so very good at it. Most of what we see is in media geared towards very basic level discussion so that everybody will be able to appreciate it and nobody feels stupid. But something is lost in that for the thinking person. Your discussion is higher level, and serious with just enough irreverence and humor so as to not be boring. Would love to see a general discussion channel from you…..Bravo!

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Much appreciated.

[@sirfer6969]

You nailed it right there, great comment.

[@d.bcooper2271]

@@TheCarGuysTV I use solar to charge my ev

[@suxix7312]

The world is run by people who know how to make money. And thats all they know. Until that changes you better have deep pockets or learn how to do things for yourself. I just hope these super rich people who only care about money do realise that their money is going to be worthless and pointless if there is no society around them. Money doesnt work. People do. Cant eat money.

[@78Outlaw]

Good video, as an affordable EV owner and classic car enthusiast I can appreciate the pros and cons and your point on ‘demonising’ drivers well made, air quality, consumption and GHG footprint constantly being confused in mainstream.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@litecoinawarenessphoenix34]

@@TheCarGuysTV If only honda had kept making those 45mpg CRXs well past the 80's..

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@TheCarGuysTV read some of the comments from the constructive posts. And revisit this matter. The world needs help in understanding what is possible. Political parties on both sides are struggling.

[@msimon6808]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 Water vapor, according to Greenhouse Gas Theory, is responsible for 3/4s of the warming. Funny how few know this.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@msimon6808 sadly. When someone lights a match the forrest can burn down. 🔥 Funny? not so. Water vapour does hold the heat. But it needs the trigger of CO2 build up. What you say is part of the distraction, put out from a lot of businesses, that will be hit hard from CO2 reduction. I have heard serious business people say exactly the same, I can not believe how these intelligent and wealthy people can talk so much crap. Then I have to tell myself that I am the Civil Engineer and they only have business education. The ocean and clouds and rainfall have not changed for 10,000 years, since the last ice age. But something did change 🤔 🙄 thinking. I apologise for my sarcasm. We need everyone to know only the facts and not the distracting ideas.

[@paulking5521]

Am not just saying this after your great video. But I have been saying this for years now even before electric cars were not so popular as they are now! This government are making fools of the people of this country! I truly love the way you done your research, you have a great understanding and most of all common sense. Great work and well done thanks again for your wonderful views

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Appreciate that, Paul 👍🏻

[@johnchambers8528]

This is one of the best discussions on ev cars that I have seen. He gives a good background on the good and bad aspects of using electric exclusively to run cars and other transportation. As noted much more electric production and distribution will be needed if we choose to run all cars and trucks, busses etc on electric. If major investments are not made in low emission or no emission electric production then there will not be any gain in overall atmospheric greenhouse gases. I am now retired and worked in the residential building energy reduction field. As mentioned in video buildings, especially older ones were not built to be very energy efficient. Upgrading building insulation levels as well as appliance and lighting upgrades could return even better atmospheric greenhouse gas reductions. Policy makers must think of the big picture and consider all ways to reduce bad greenhouse gas emissions rather than one item as the do it all. Thanks again for pointing out these type of issues in this video.

[@mt2nv1]

It’s ok. He misses on many points related to economics, efficiency and public health impacts of air pollution. We indirectly subsidize oil and gas through our tax dollars. 👍

[@1TimBaugh]

Some useful points in this video, but, in the conclusion especially, I'm afraid that you don't get to the heart of the problem. We are massively over consuming. Like it or not, unless we are MUCH more modest in the demands we make on our planet, the problem is only going to get worse, and it's already pretty catestrophic. If your interest was, say, bird life rather than car ownership, you might be a lot hotter under the collar than you currently are. The catastrophic decline in wildlife in the Uk is already largely irreversable, even if there was the will, which, despite some commited and hard working people, (yes, including those who protest), there isn't. With the current state of things, it's doomed to continue the sharp deline it's currently experiencing. Whether this is the end of us as we currently are is a very real question. To have any chance we can't continue to try to justify the sort of selfish individualism which regards individual car ownership as a virtue (and that's more than a bit of a stretch, frankly). It's not a question of which type of human activity produces the most problems, it's really very simple. It's greed. Greed is destroying the world.

[@DrBernon]

I must say several things. You are right in the general Idea, and I applaud your efforts in finding the truth. But you got some things wrong. 1) There are decarbonization efforts in all industries. So your view that the car is the only subject being bashed is just wrong. 2) Renewables are actually our best bet to reduce carbon emissions in the short term. We are not currently capable of reaching net zero with renewables, but if a country goes from 100% energy produced with fossil fuels to 40%, it is already a very big improvement. And renewables are currently the cheapest and fastest to build. If we want fast action, we have no other choice. Nuclear is very expensive, building a plant takes decades, and we could also not power everything with nuclear power, because you can't turn a nuclear plant on and off, or throttle it with demand. Renewables, in the other hand, are more flexible, because all can be turned off. So in that sense, it is better to go overkill with renewables, to account for their inconsistency, and just turn off the windmills when there is an excess of energy. 3) Another hidden objective of renewables, is losing the dependence from other countries. And that is something that nuclear power does not solve. The mines and the enrichment plants are controlled by a few countries, and even less companies. Just like fossil fuels. We don't want that, and the current price of gas and gasoline are a clear example as to why. 4) Renewables could provide 100% of the energy if we had a way to store energy. And that is what most research is focussing on. As I said… Renewables are already the cheapest sources of energy, and the only drawback they have is their inconsistency. If the intermittence problem can be solved with a buffer to eliminate this crazy system we have now, where we match production to consumption. Any other source of energy is instantly outdated. 5) Renewables, for being new, get a lot of critics. And they are correct. But renewables only look bad in a vacuum, and are usually exaggerated and criticized unfairly. The wind turbine blades are an excellent example of what I mean. That is a problem... Yes... But we should not forget that we are talking about an inert material, that will just stay buried there, and no one will even remember it is there in a 100 years. And that at the same time people complain about that, we produce thousands of times more volume of plastic trash out of water bottles and packaging in general. All mixed with the rest of the trash we throw out, to produce a toxic cocktail that will seep into the ground waters for centuries, if not more. That those wind turbines are an attempt to replace fossil fuels. That require a bunch more land for the extraction, transport and refining. I live close to a refinery, and it is the size of a small city or a large town. While refining, it burst a ton of byproducts, needing a bunch of water for cooling as well. It is terrible. The surrounding area has a higher than average incidence of respiratory diseases and infertility due to the pollution of the air. Wen a tanker arrives with fuel, the thing spends at least 3 days with a burning torch with a flame of more than 10 meters high, it illuminates the night, and you can hear its roar from 25 km distance. And that is what you can see... The plant also has hundreds of cooling towers smoking steam 24/7. That refinery has a perpetual cloud on top from how much water it evaporates, from all the heat of burning stuff. And that is just the refining... No useful energy was yet produced. As you can see... I get a bit crazy when I see people complaining from the looks of windmills when I can see every day a giant refinery with a yellow haze over top that, is killing us. And that their complaining is ultimately telling politicians that they rather have that awful refinery, than seeing windmills 30 km off the coast, in the sea. Now to cars... 6) Believe it or not... Due to the wasteful nature of combustion engines, and the even more wasteful nature of refineries. It is actually better to charge an electric car with a coal plant, and specially a gas plant, than using a gasoline car. The reason is simple... Efficiency. The electric car is something like over 90% efficient. And modern thermal power plants are very efficient too. The worse power plants are above 35% efficiency, and the best over 66%. Compare that to the amazing 25% of gasoline engines, and it is very easy to see how an electric car is still better. 7) The diesel thing... I see it all the time... People conflating and misunderstanding particle emissions and CO2 emissions. Anything that burns gives off a bunch of things, but to this conversation, they can be reduced to 2 things: Smoke and CO2. - CO2 is a gas. It is not toxic or harmful by itself, in fact, it is a normal element of our atmosphere. But, if there is an excess in the atmosphere, we get global warming. - Smoke is a mix of ash and other gases that are not present in the natural atmosphere. Those elements are reactive, and react with plenty of other elements. Some of which are biological elements. And for that reason they are toxic. They can react in unwanted ways with living cells and do more or less harm. In other words... When talking about the harm combustion engines make, you can view it in 2 ways... The climate change perspective, or the health perspective. Diesel engines are more fuel efficient. Meaning that a diesel car burns less fuel per mile. Since both diesel and gasoline have a similar amount of carbon in them... The result is that diesel cars emit considerably less CO2 per mile driven than gasoline cars. For that reason, diesel cars were touted as more eco-friendly. Because in the climate change perspective, they are. But sadly... Diesel engines burn dirtier fuel (because they can, and dirty diesel is cheaper), but most importantly... Burn hotter. With the extra heat, some molecules react and turn into reactive elements, harmful to life. So diesel make more smoke than gasoline, and that smoke is inevitably more toxic than gasoline. So later down the line, politicians decided that it was more important to prevent lung damage to the city dwellers from diesel exhausts, than to prevent global warming. So they started demonizing diesel as more polluting. Because they are... when it comes to harmful particles. And in fact... gasoline cars are getting the same fate. Current emissions requirements, limit the amount of harmful particles to very low levels. To achieve those levels, cars have a bunch of filters and crap on the exhaust. All those things, reduce particle emissions, but decrease the engine efficiency by quite a bit. Enough to be noticeable in the fuel consumption. All this causes cars to burn more fuel, and thus emit more CO2.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Thanks for watching

[@touchedouche8806]

Good lord dude. Make your own video then. Doubt anyone is reading that

[@justthefactsmam9]

@@touchedouche8806 Lol! when I clicked on his reply to "read more" I said "holy shi!. Then I clicked "show less".

[@TheeRocker]

THere are no renewables for pete sake,,, Diversity of options for the area concerned should be their right to produce, but not to control. Soon water will be taxed if collected on private property,,, THink about it...

[@TheeRocker]

We are closer to extinction having too little co2, than too much co2... Think about that.

[@johneverett3947]

Wonderful and accurate video. I just found your channel and subscribed. I live in California and worked as an auto tech for 45 years and owned an auto shop for 25 of those. When the government started it’s push to remove old cars from the road and replace them with EV / Hybrid “ for the environment “ I tried to teach my customers to make informed decisions. It all depends on how you use your car, if you have an older car that carries 6 people and gets 10 mpg and replace it with a EV/Hybrid carrying 1 person at 50 mpg who wins? Next you’re older car already made it’s carbon footprint, if you throw it away just to replace it with a new EV/Hybrid you just made a new carbon footprint. If you’re older car is safe and reliable drive it till it stops moving. Here I California our electric power production and grid already is not keeping up with demand and would not be able to supply all the new EV’s. Lastly I will not even get into how the government will makeup all the tax income lost on fuels that couldn’t be accurately collected on electrical use, I don’t want to pay taxes for your EV. Keep up your clear and accurate work, thanks.

[@donoughryan9928]

The Webber Collage can Get you up to speed on EVs for about 2K

[@tomasviane3844]

At work (in Belgium) we had a survey about our mode of transport. All the questions came down to 2 modes: public transport and electric bicycles... no talk about cars. This seems to be what they have in mind.

[@petesig93]

For sure, these are the two premium choices. However, for the many situations where these are not feasible (here in Australia that is MANY uses) the EV is far better than an ICE vehicle, especially if we can source electric power from renewables instead of coal.

[@gvibes69]

@@petesig93 Really ??? And the fact that you gonna create alot off scrapyard because a EV after 10 years max is garbage? The batteries dont have a big life and is more expensive buying new batteries than buying a new EV !!!!! Petrol cars can have 3-40 years if well mantained !

[@petesig93]

@@gvibes69 do some more research. One guy recently with his Tesla here in Australia had 400,000 km in a couple of years (he runs it as an Uber) with barely $3,000 of maintenance cost in that time. He finally had the battery replaced at 635,000 km. And this sort of experience is not at all uncommon. How long do you reckon your ICE car will last without a new engine or transmission?

[@garthhancock3373]

@@petesig93 You don't need to replace an engine or a transmission if you actually take care of maintaining it, versus running it into the ground.

[@MarksTournaments]

@@garthhancock3373not true, stuff breaks

[@marciacunningham5877]

Thank you for exposing the truth! Michael

[@martinbooker213]

Hi I moved to Spain in 2005 from the UK I don't know much about electricity but my house in the UK had an 11kw electric shower just to mention one item! When I moved and found that the total incoming electricity for my house in Spain which I might add is bigger and has a pool to run was 3.3kw YES 3.3kw we have to be a bit more thoughtful as not to switch everything we own on at the same time and I'm not talking about having the TV on when we are cooking!!! It's things like when I'm welding my significant other is cooking and the pool is on then yes it will trip but why the hell is all that power being put into every house in the UK when it's not needed! It's that same old if it's there people will use it. We probably Havant tripped the electric for ten years now. I know I have not mentioned cars once in this comment so I totally agree they are not the problem we are being told they are. Just my thoughts for what it's worth?

[@Tclack]

Thank you for the thorough treatment of this complex subject. My biggest nitpick however is the comment and indeed basically the section following that "There's no point in moving to EV if the electricity that you use is dirtier than petrol". Power plants can be modeled with the Rankine cycle, cars with the Otto cycle. The ability of these larger power plants to raise their highest temperatures at the steam turbine end of things (as well as recovering more energy from low pressure turbines) and the ability to reduce pressure in the condenser increases the energy yield making it far more efficient. This capability just isn't practical in cars. It gets difficult to model because there are indeed losses in transmission lines, but overall, it's more efficient than point sources (especially in the US with needlessly terrible efficiency standards). Even if all energy was produced from coal and gas, it should still yield lower emmissions overal. But it's not just coming from coal and gas. Also there are many companies, particularly in Germany that recycle lithium ion batteries as well as cleaner alternatives (sodium ion, ion air) TL;DR point sources are less efficient so power electric vehicles off electricity from gas and coal plants is a step in the right direction.

[@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan]

I hear what you're saying, but its actually not a relevant difference. Modern cars with internal combustion engines are actually almost as efficient as the average coal or gas plant, so when you factor in transmission losses and especially charging losses for the EV then the difference is negligible.

[@Tclack]

I can't say for sure if it's negligible or not. In the US grid, I've seen estimates of energy lost anywhere between 5-20%. This is of course built on our existing aging infrastructure which is planned to be overhauled now following the recent infrastructure and "inflation reduction" (really a climate) bills. I'm hopeful this will at the very least push those numbers towards the lower end of the range. I agree with many of the sentiments reflected in the video: nuclear isn't evil, driving a used gas vehicle is better than buying a new electric vehicle and transportation isn't the single largest contributer to GHG releases. It's still a good chunk however and certainly every bit of progress counts

[@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan]

@@Tclack Yeah, the grid might get an overhaul, but it will take decades and decades, and there will always be some transmission losses. But that is not a huge factor irregardless though.

[@mlauer]

I couldn't wait to move away from my neighbor. Their solar panels belched smoke day and night.

[@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan]

@@mlauer If you lived next to a mine or processing plants building the solar panels you wouldnt be joking about it...

[@markandrews8960]

This was a FANTASTIC and very informative presentation! I would call this the proper use of the social web and very well done. Thank you.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@izzyabby123ok]

Yes, this is an excellent massive pile of very important information. I’ll spread far and wide. 😎🇺🇸👌

[@harryadam1671]

Except it is very misguided.

[@oumuamua1963]

This is handpicked data to support the narrative. These are not facts. Do you think board member would vote to invest billions of shareholders money into a technology which is based on fabricated lies. Lol you people need to watch a video or 2 on critical thinking it will literally pay dividends for you and your family for years to come.

[@oumuamua1963]

The car guys just so you know you are LITERALLY but I directly killing people potentially making someone hesitant and potentially buying a less safe combustion engine car over an electric cars. Do you know Tesla is voted the safest car on the road. In all tests and classes. And all for money, How can you convince anyone your a good person I would want someone like you in my life at all. But I guess it's okay with you if it's inderect.

[@brijohnson6660]

skip to here 16:35 "there is no point moving to EV" because our electric grid is also fossil powered. most of this video is using slap-together bits of at least some part good sense, but it all falls apart here. We live in a capitalist society, and that is not what we are trying to change (yes some are but that's not what global warming is). YOU the reader, and especially the guy who wrote this script, need to listen to me. Under capitalism, we can FIX the grid by growing the electricity demand, and prove the viability of "green" electric sources, and improve them. Power stations are designed for certain livespans, 20-60 years usually. Even China under the CCP would not be able to just shut down all existing power generation to save the planet. Even if EVs did not exist, even if we had no way to power a car with a battery, under capitalism we have to INCREASE electricity demand (sales) somehow, while subsidizing concurrently the addition of green power generation "plants" to EVER begin a sucessful transition away from fossil fuels, without completely collapsing the modern economy (of any free and developed nation). Let me rearrange this; somehow we absolutely MUST increase electricity consumption, and simultaneously create green electricity generation, so that it can iterate and improve. As refinements are made to new power sources, replacement power plants will not be fossil fuel burning, hopefully without even needing public subsidy. Now, how on earth do we increase electricity demand? Preferably 2-3% per year continuously and predictably. What would spread that demand out evenly with the population? The EVs must PRECEDE the full decarbonizing of the power grid, to catalyze this change. We must increase power demand (and for some time) to EVER decarbonize the power grid (before running out of fuel in 20-40 years). Keep in mind that only a "flat earther" would propose we can just burn oil forever. Fossil fuels will not last, and we have had test runs in the 1970s 80s, 90s, and 00s for what disruption and shortages do. The growing pains and expense of a transition are far better worked out now at cheap energy prices, without some world war threatening. I do agree however: if you hate humanity, are a chaotic anarchist, and/or fully disregard the needs of all beings who are not yourself, whom will be living and trying to form families in 20-40 years. True, you do look old enough that you will not need to fight in a war for commodities yourself, or would someday wish to know just one day on a healthy viable world without desperation and misery, because you have inconceivable luxury today. Yes, people with such opinions have the right to disagree, and should be understood as not seeing what benefit all this will be to them. I would argue its "not about you." This "me" attitude floats with a odor that "smug" doesn't have, but is obvious and prevalent among those who get wrinkled over the thought of being "pushed" into "things".

[@guywerry6614]

I live in Manitoba, Canada, where we have an abundance of hydro-generated electricity, to the point where are able to export. However, there are significant impacts from hydro that don't often get talked about. Vast areas of land flooded in order to form the reservoirs. In our north this led to natural mercury leaching out into the reservoirs and getting into the fish, causing horriffic mercury poisioning in the Indegenous populations, many of whom had to be relocated beforehand. Not to mention that there are only so many rivers that can be dammed / are suitable for hydro.

[@swiftice5]

That is a fascinating tidbit that most people would have never heard about. Appreciate your commentary

[@kellensarien9039]

"Don't often get talked about"? Are you serious? Here in BC the downsides of the Site C damn on the Peace River were in the news for years, and the Green Leader (now former Green leader) Andrew Weaver was opposed to the dam for those reasons.

[@keithj2799]

@Erwin de Wit Niagara DOES have significant hydroelectric power generation.

[@garyradtke3252]

I mostly agree with you but I also am old enough to remember what real pollution looked like. Black smoke from power plants, industry and many homes that still used coal for heat as late as the early 70's. Rivers that where dead and literally caught fire do to pollution and semi and delivery trucks spewing black smoke which is almost pure carbon. A brown haze hovered over most cities around the world that sometimes was so bad it appeared to be fog. Young people of today don't know what pollution is. People have been screaming the sky is falling for many many years and all of the predictions have failed to materialize. Once upon a time it was an ice age coming. Then it was the hole in the ozone layer that was discovered later is natural and varies in size. Now it's warming changed to climate change because they couldn't get the warming to cooperate. There is no honesty in science. It seem many so called scientists just want bad things to happen so they can be praised for saving the world. They do things like show glaciers calve off which is natural. They claim glaciers are melting back for miles when most have increased in size. Miami Florida was supposed to be under water long before now but it's not. No indication that sea levels are rising, only land sinking and getting back to Miami, it was a swamp under salt water before they decided to develop it and water is no higher today that 50 years ago. The water problem they have is mostly do to the number of square miles covered in concrete and not enough drainage for tropical rains or hurricanes. When science starts being honest instead of trying to create a reason for their existence then I will listen to them again.

[@maribethcable9633]

I too live not far from J&L Steel in Bethlehem Steel

[@randynutt5660]

Another point is that all of this 'Zero Carbon Emissions' push is supposed to reduce a 1.5 degree rise in Worldwide Temperatures by 2100! REAL Scientists say the ONLY way to actually FLOOD the earth is to melt the Ground-based Ice on Antarctica! THAT would take a Worldwide Temperature increase of nearly 50 degrees Fahrenheit! The average Temperature on Antarctica is -74 Fahrenheit. The average SUMMER temperature is -4 Fahrenheit. Yeah...

[@gybx4094]

I'm 64 and I remember. The smog over LA was what Beijing and New Delhi look like today. We made huge strides in pollution elimination. But the politicians and scientists must have their own myth of an apocalypse to control the masses.

[@theresamcgaughey3358]

So true I remember

[@cactiguide]

Thank you for this excellent comment.

[@patriciawalters6778]

You have it exactly right when you say the internal combustion engine empowers and liberates us. This is exactly the 'problem' for the new 'collectively minded' style of government. To create a functioning collective, outliers must be controlled. A populace that cannot freely move about and trade is easier to control. First, create a myth that combustion engines are immoral, and make the populace feel guilty for desiring to travel. Next, convince them electric vehicles will fix it. Thusly, make the populace dependent on government controlled electricity for transportation and shipping. Once that happens, CLICK! The switch is thrown and electric vehicles become nothing but giant, expensive paperweights that the populace still has to pay for, but cannot use to generate income. Now we're poor, immobilized, and completely dependent on the largesse of the political upper class. We are heading toward a new serfdom.

[@paulsmith3921]

Exactly why we need to continue expanding the renewable energy industry. Cheaper, cleaner and you can produce your own from solar panels. Try building your own oil and refining company. It's the oil bribed politicians that are keeping us captive and under control.

[@patriciawalters6778]

@@paulsmith3921 renewable energy does not have the potential to meet the energy needs of a modern society. Wind turbines and solar sustems cost more $ and often create more pollution in their construction than they offset. They might provide an advantage in the short term for the immediate user but over the long run are are a net loss. The only form of 'clean' energy that has the capacity to meet modern energy needs is nuclear. China will soon outstrip the US in clean cheap energy and if that happens we will not be able to afford to buy the minerals necessary (which the Chinese own) to continue building these shibboleths. We will have no choice but to go back to combustion of fossil fuels just to remain independent. Either that, or the US becomes a Chinese colony.

[@countryjoe3551]

Absolutely perfect synopsis of the Green New Deal cult.

[@importantpotato]

@@patriciawalters6778 wind turbines and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuel burning generation ,Thats a fact please look it up ." they ofter create more pollution " NOT TRUE either please look this up for yourself as well .Over the long term they are a net gain ,again look it up and educate yourself before printing non facts .We will need fossil fuels for a long time but to a diminishing degree .One could argue that China has already won the war against the US without firing a bullet ,Trump and the GOP did it all for them .

[@reverendbarker650]

Patricia, thinking things through to a logicial conclusion isn't your strong suit is it ? Apart from the fact that we are all already at the mercy of international fossil fuel cartels who can manipulate our economies by raising or lowering the price of oil, so you are being dictated to by vested interest already, the practicality of your statement is utter idiocy , many of us are now generating electricity from our roof spaces , we actually can buy home batteries that we can use to charge cars ourselves. So if the govt made every electric car useless ( which would entail them also having to turn off domestic electricity supplies as you can plug your car into a power point to recharge) , it would also mean that all privately owned electricity companies would be deprived of any income, but it would NOT cut off everyone from their EV'S , as they could recharge using their home batteries, as many people already do, so essentially it would not work . But there are many other reasons why your theory is just utter crap. the entire global automobile industry would cease to function as they would have invested trillions in new plant, the entire charging system that also would cost billions would be rendered useless , this would cause massive unemployment, mass disruption of the economy , mass unrest because people would have been defrauded by the government and to what end ? if any government wanted to start a revolution against themselves by the general population they only have to threaten to take away or immobilise peoples cars and there would be rioting in the streets within the day. I suggest you take up a hobby, such as underwater knitting, or better still invest in a new brain , I think they do models with a 60+ IQ level cheaply so you'd definitely be improving your capacity to think more clearly if you invested in one.

[@alexd302]

I live in the USA and have a 2020 Tesla M3LR and a 2023 Model S Plaid. I charge at home 99% of the time. My monthly electricity costs for both my EVs amount to LESS than the cost of petrol for my 1 ride-on mower! During 4 years of ownership, I have had zero defects on either car and not 1 cent of maintenance cost. I have done 2 road-trips with my Tesla and it was absolutely no problem. More expensive than charging at home but still cheaper than gas prices. For me, the EV's weak point is long distance towing. Tow anything and your range cuts in half. I keep an old cheap F150 which I use to tow my boat over long distances. I come to Tesla after ownership of 5 consecutive S class Mercedes Benz's over a 35 year period. I have a collection of gas-powered classic cars to remind me of the olden days. My Model S Plaid is so quiet and so smooth and best of all is it's Jekyll and Hyde nature where I can take Grandma to church in sublime comfort or change a few settings and blow away a Koenigsegg Hypercar. They make a complete nonsense of even the fastest ICE cars. In the USA, renewables have already passed coal for electricity production. The fossil fuel component of electricity production will continue to decline. Don't give me the bs that my EV is being powered by fossil fuels (alone). Sit there in traffic and tell me you're just as happy to be surrounded by stinking, pollution spewing petrol/diesel cars!

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Good for you

[@brucecoleman7412]

Something that no one talks about and I think you missed. The tons of ore of lithium and cobalt that must be mined just to make one EV battery. The machinery required operates on diesel fuel. Most is mined in countries that require no DEF or catalytic converters. Even if it were mined in the US, off-road equipment doesn’t have the emissions devices that on-road vehicles do. It would probably take years for a fuel efficient vehicle to pollute as much as it took just to produce an EV battery. Then what do you do with it when it’s used up?

[@erikf790]

New batteries, like teslas lfp batteries do not require cobalt, and the lithium is almost entirely sourced from the us and Australia, not through mining, but through evaporative extraction that uses pills of water to leech the lithium from the soil.

[@Luka_3D]

You don't require tons of lithium for a lithium-ion battery. Also, do you ever make the same comparison for ICE cars? You don't just create pollution by buring the fuel in your car. If we want to figure out how much pollution your car creates, we need to figure out how much pollution a single barrel of diesel or gasoline produces before it even reaches your tank. Oil refineries are some of the biggest pollutants in the wrold. Ships transporting raw oil usually burn bunker fuel which is the dirtiest, cheapest fuel imaginable. It's so bad that some ports don't even allow them to burn it while they are docked. Pump jacks run on electricity which can either be green or produced by burining coal. Offshore pumps have diesel generators which create their own pollution. The pumps themselves also have problems because sometimes they spill oil into the ocean, killing a huge amount of marine life. The transportation of said oil on land or roads either requires electricity or even more diesel.

[@investoroncoke]

@@Luka_3Dyou do require tonnes of Lithium ore to produce the Lithium Carbonate required for Batteries. The refining process is energy intensive also as you need LCE of purity greater than 99.9% so the batteries don’t explode. But don’t let facts get in your way

[@Luka_3D]

@@investoroncoke You bring up a good point. However, if we include the pollution created by the production of EVs, shouldn't we also include the pollution generated by the extraction and refinement of oil? These are highly energy intensive processes. The refineries themselves are one of the largest producers of pollution worldwide. Not to downplay battery production pollution but do we just always forget the huge amount of devastation that oil spills cause? Like yeah, strip mining for lithium is bad but is the alternative not worse?

[@danmichael7335]

The damage done by mining is permanent.

[@pamnuman1619]

Excellent. And the UK expects that in 12 months people will be paying up to 4 thousnad pounds a year more for energy. The greens are going to make rich people richer, poor people poorer and manufacturing EVs, wind turbines and solar panals are going to increase greenhouse emissions like we`ve never seen before.

[@paxhumana2015]

Here is the thing, all forms of currency, as well as all of its related ilk, regardless of their name, form, function, way. and shape, are all artificially constructs that have all been given artificial values by the Luciferian globalist elite. When those things are eliminated, then humanity becomes more equal.

[@berniecanute8568]

WOW! Right in line with everything that I have been thinking and saying. Really, the biggest problem is with those in power. They care only about their own agendas and don't even want to know about the REAL truth. My newest car is a 1999 model year. No way can I EVER afford an electric car......

[@ricksmith2277]

Don't forget the politicians pushing EV's own stock in all things related. Conflict of interest much? Why isn't Elizabeth Warren pushing a bill to stop EV makers from price gouging?

[@harrymills2770]

And their robber-baron cronies who cash in on every government initiative and subsidy. You see this with EVERY form of government intervention. The rich get richer and we get poorer.

[@rodpanhard]

The vast majority of people cannot afford an electric car and what's more the government can't afford to upgrade the grid and put in the infrastructure to support the switch to EV's even if they could. This is all about getting people to surrender their cars and get them on public transport.

[@Chomann2000]

that's why there's a push for electric cars, your average person will not be able to afford even a used electric car and have to rely on mass transit.

[@maurice7413]

@@Chomann2000 not true, I bought a 2017 Hyundai Ioniq EV for $15k.

[@kaisong5004]

I like your fair factual points on China.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Thank you

[@philausa9629]

Thanks for this ! Real issues must be addressed!

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Thanks for watching!

[@choddo]

I am not going to go full evangelist backlash (I own 3 EVs and I know what you mean about the soul of petrol cars) but the electricity generation argument needs to consider a few things. It’s getting cleaner all the time (UK is about 50% renewables and growing even without serious hydro or geothermal resources) and efficiency is a lot higher than an ICE so each kWh of gas burned still gets more miles than you get out of petrol, especially in that Lambo ;) You’re completely right that this can only be one part of the answer but there are a LOT of cars in the world and more every year. Also the temp changes prior to the industrial revolution pale into insignificance, not in magnitude (some were a lot bigger than 2 or 3 C) but in pace. Evolution and species migration could handle it.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Phew! Seriously though, I wonder that will happen if we lose the 25% of our gas that we get from Russia, then another of our nuclear power stations finally gets decommissioned in 2 years. And then there isn't a windy storm, like Eunice. And there are 2 million more EVs on the road. What then?

[@monk3yboy69]

@Chaddo I believe the correct figure is more likely 25% of UK electricity is from renewables. The government is claiming it is 39.9% as of February 2022, however I cannot find sources to back this up. And digging into their reports, you find many inconsistencies. So either way, we are NOWHERE near 50%.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@monk3yboy69 Depending on the wind and solar each day, they account for 20-40% of electricity during the day in the UK. Gas makes up the rest with a tiny bit of nuclear.

[@choddo]

@@monk3yboy69 tried to reply but think it's being deleted as I tried to edit twice and get an error. Maybe cos it had an external link. Good luck to all of us anyway, there are no easy answers.

[@GTJW22409]

What these guys fail to grasp is the renewable energy technology is just beginning, as time goes on the tech will get better and slowly replace more and more energy supplies. It's so simple..

[@danhurley6152]

Surely the most environmentally friendly course of action would be preserving the basic cars we have and use technology to make them run clean and not keep making more new throw away ones. But I guess that wouldn't make money wheel go round 😂

[@cre8tvedge]

That will not help resolve the environmental crisis of agw and it's environmental degradation. Not one bit.

[@redkos]

Take a seditive@@cre8tvedge . There's no, "environmental crisis". Take a look at the 15-year, 140-year, & 10,000-year weather maps from both NOAA & NASA showing there is no, "crisis". Stop drinking the propaganda Kool-Aid & start reading the facts, okay Turkey Lurkey?

[@Asphyx12]

@@cre8tvedge Then do you think throwing away the already existing ones to replace with EV is more helping than optimizing the existing ones for cleaner cars? yea you clearly the smart one here.

[@cre8tvedge]

@@Asphyx12 We just had the two hottest days since records. This is world wide temps. We lost 4 times the size of Texas in Antarctic glaciers. The hottest ocean temps ever. All from fossil fuels. So yes I am the smarter one here because this is opening act of global warming. It only gets worse and we must address it.

[@sheilaolfieway1885]

@@cre8tvedge ever hear of an ice age?

[@paulv2394]

I remember when I was in my teens, I had this strange feeling that electric vehicles wouldn't make the world a cleaner place. EVERYTHING man made takes some measure of fossil fuels to produce. We're DOOMED.

[@johndone8045]

Human is the consumer, regardless what it is still a consumption

[@HowToHomeLife]

Anyone driving an EV, is a victim of fraudulent marketing, and needs to realize that their EV vehicle has zero value at the end of the battery warranty and this battery is considered to be hazardous scrap!

[@jameshigson6930]

Absolutely fantastic video. You have listed every single argument I have been trying to communicate to the block-heads down in 'Strayia. Well done!

[@TheCarGuysTV]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@drandrewcassar]

Well, guess what....the block-heads in 'Strayla have voted to try to save the environments. Because with rising temperatures year after year, bush fires, bleached corals, they are finally believing what experts have been predicting for decades.

[@deanhawes5088]

yep iam a block head ........question how come you dont own a petrol powerd drill they are cheap ? you wont run that inside your home for to long before it's stuffed / stinks the air up / and fills your enviroment with poisonous fumes ... what about buying your wife a petrol powed vacume cleaner / petrol powerd tread mill / petrol powered blender ....................... you run petrol outside burry your head in the sand ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, some one else poisoned the planet not me

[@marksmit8112]

You are the blockhead that choose to deny the facts that EVs are cheaper to run and better for the planet. That said we need to reduce energy and material demand, the only valid point.

[@deanhawes5088]

@@marksmit8112 lots of people dont get it ? they havent made the conection between power tools and cars yet ? soon they will wake up and say iam miles behind everyone else .and wasted a ton of money

[@MyRetroWatches]

Honestly that was epic!! Very well made mini informative documentary. Must have taken ages to script and edit all that so well done. Certainly eye opening. Had no idea China was working to be self sufficient. Thanks for this one it’s appreciated.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Glad you enjoyed it! - It was an enormous effort.

[@MyRetroWatches]

@@TheCarGuysTV I can tell but it pays off.

[@mukavelli]

@@TheCarGuysTV Have you found something about how much we actually utilize from that ''green energy'' percentage showed in every graph as the total production of a certain country? By that, I mean, we know that the sun shines only during the day when we don't actually need that much electricity, and the wind doesn't blow all the time, (not to mention the efficiency degradation with time also) so the grid will be sustained from a fossil fueled plants anyway. So the question is from that maximal production capacity of the solar/wind installations that we see from various graphs, how much does the grid actually uses, because we know that the power plants are working anyway to deliver a constant power output. It is still fascinating to me that no one gets the bullshittery.

[@CTimmerman]

@@mukavelli Cooling tracks solar irradiance pretty well, cars charge at work, it's always windy somewhere, and grid batteries are faster and cheaper than power plants.

[@mukavelli]

@@CTimmerman I don't understand your response to my comment, I was asking a question.

[@erniebertie3285]

I've always assumed this was more of a change in power. The oil rich countries controlling prices any time in suits a raise. We will be paying the same level of taxes regardless if its "green" or "dirty" fuels

[@georgeinjapan6583]

I guess it depends on what % of global warming is anthropogenic.

[@marythompson4654]

Go greed

[@KeruxLand]

The whole electric saga is a total scam; from buying overpriced machines that lose value in a blink, to the waiting time lost for charging. The price for a new battery is mindboggling....

[@Jamie-h5b]

It's also destroying the environment. The opposite of what we're told. Look up Baogang Tailings Dam. Massive toxic, radioactive waste being dumped into the environment in order to create "green energy".

[@DD-gt2cv]

One point you missed in all this. Human CO2 emissions account for 3% of total CO2 emitted per annum; 97% are from natural sources. Another is that plants actually like higher levels of CO2 and the final one is that the science on climate needs to be depoliticised and the sources of funding for research need to be made transparent...follow the money and you will find yet more alarming facts.

[@enifu]

Plants are along the ground, though. CO2 doesn't do them much good high up in the atmosphere.

[@DD-gt2cv]

@@enifu CO2 is more dense than air it sinks to the ground

[@williamtaylor506]

The fact of the matter is that atmospheric levels have risen from 280 ppm before the industrial revolution to about 420 ppm presently, due almost entirely to human activity.

[@DD-gt2cv]

@@williamtaylor506 And? CO2was over 1000ppm in the past and oddly life thrived. Odd really, isnt it that life adapts . Odd you dont worry about water vapour which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 or methane. Nor do the IPCC why is that I wonder? The medieval warm period cant be explained by rising CO2 levels nor can the little ice age. Ohh hang on maybe that could be something to do with that fat yellow thing in the sky perhaps. Something totally ignored now by the IPCC, given its role was rubbished by 2 activist scientists who make no secret of the fact their rationale for doing so...to force a change of life style on everyone else. If we stopped all CO2 emissions this second the man made CO2 in the atmosphere will persist for over 100 years. Unless and until the politics and vested interest is taken out of science and funding is absolutely transparent I will remain very cynical about hysterical conclusions designed to enrich those companies and individuals on the back of this so called 'crisis'.

[@MrStian78]

BS

[@grzegorzkapica7930]

I love the way you made the vid. Superb work. I have a few remarks: 1. EVs as the whole are more efficient than ICE. It is about 100% fuel economy (counting from taking the oil/coal/whatever out of the ground to moving the car for 100km). Transporting and refining fuel takes energy and resources (like cobalt). So comparison needs to start at material extraction and include the whole cycle of usage. 2. EVs are very recyclable right now. Tesla and Redwood materials are taking batteries apart more efficient, than we are able to mine them from the ground. The process is probably still dirty, but still it is less expensive than digging and refining. 3. To have cheap battery recycling governments would have to pay for it. The thing is, you have to think of it at production phase. But now the production is half of what will be a year from now. Counting the life time of a battery to say 10-15 years, it would bankrupt a company to pay for a cheap recyclable battery naw and have a return in 20-30 years. 3. It is energy independence we are after, not CO2 emissions. Every country will have the possibility to produce their own fuel for cars. Probably most of them their own batteries. 4. The issue with something getting less expensive is, people use it more. So if anything EVs will make more emissions, not less. Despite being 50% more efficient. Self driving will make everybody able to use a car, what will make cars a nightmare in emissions.

[@Maximara]

Failure to account for material extraction and the whole cycle of usage is where nuclear trips up.

[@grzegorzkapica7930]

@@Maximara please elaborate, what you see as a failure. What materials?

[@Maximara]

@@grzegorzkapica7930 Uranium. You need fossil fuel to mine the uranium, more to enrich the uranium, even more to transport the uranium, yet more to find a safe place to put the spent fuel which need, you guessed it, fossil fuel to transport it. Thorium reactors are barely on the table.

[@grzegorzkapica7930]

@@Maximara I agree. Everything needs energy. The question is; how much. What matters is: electricity is agile. That is the best part about EVs; they are robust to future changes in policy or technology.

[@jimmyhackers8980]

for every litre of fuel burned.....there is about 14 litres of breathable air that gets turned into a human killing poison. this fact is missed out from every "petrols still great" shill video out there.

[@broark88]

As an engineer, I endorse this video. There are some important details you didn't cover, though: Modern car engines powering the vehicle directly, and under real average use conditions, get to about 20-30% thermal efficiency from the fuel in the tank; hybrids sit on the higher end by moderating engine output near peak efficiency. The fuel has to be refined from the source petroleum, which is about 85% efficient. Mechanical transmission efficiency is about 80-85% efficient. Using generous figures, ICE-powered cars convert about 20% of source fuel to mobility. At modern industrial power plants burning fossil fuels, thermodynamic efficiency gets to between 40% and 50%. Mechanical to electric (and reverse) conversion with modern equipment is comfortably over 90% as is grid transmission. Using the most conservative figures, EV's convert about 32% of source fuel to mobility. EVs are the clear winner in terms of overall energy conservation - not by orders of magnitude, but by a healthy margin of around 50%, hence their common fuel economy figures of 70 to 120 MPGe. Moreover, given all the supply chain considerations in the production and distribution of hydrocarbon fuels compared to electric power, mile for mile it ends up costing consumers 4x to 10x as much to fuel ICE cars compared to EV's, not even accounting for tax. Industrial power plants can use a variety of sources from solid fuels like biomass and coal, to natural gas and fuel oils unfit for ICE's, to nuclear and maybe eventually fusion, plus supplementals like wind, solar, and hydro. Point being, there's a great deal more flexibility in keeping people mobile when their cars aren't their own power plants with very particular fuel requirements. As for grid concerns, at the current pace of EV adoption - provided it's driven by consumer choice - grid capacity will never be overloaded given it's own rate of growth; and a typical household's daily transportation needs can be met with about 2kW overnight off-peak charging from a standard wall outlet. As well, by deferring power production from under each hood to a specialized facility, we both support and place the onus on power producers to invest in lower cost, consistent, scalable energy, which will almost certainly be nuclear. Granting sufficient impetus to invest in their commercialization, the liquid fueled (i.e. molten salt) variety of nuclear reactor can run safely at very high temperature unlike today's light water reactors, making them an ideal energy source to drive Fischer-Tropsch reactions. This is an established method for synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels from renewable carbon and hydrogen sources, for applications where such fuels are indispensable, like air travel. Speaking of hydrogen, it's not an energy source; because it's so volatile, anywhere we find it, it's already burned (as in the form of water). At most, hydrogen gas can be produced using an energy source to then power a vehicle via a fuel cell or an engine, but at that point it's basically working as a very, very low energy-density battery. Synthetic equivalents to gasoline and diesel as mentioned above are superior for this purpose as they can store far more energy per unit volume and be used in existing vehicles and distributed through existing methods. While some classes of private automobiles might well remain onboard-combustion powered, we'll likely see a shift away from direct transmission to a kind of electro-mechanical "hybrid" able to optimize engine output efficiency and take advantage of regenerative braking. As for storing such energy, not least for full EVs, lithium-cobalt batteries aren't the end-all technology. We're now seeing solid-state concepts like ultracapacitors and graphene cells being developed and coming to market that use conventional or at least much cleaner materials. Bottom line: we absolutely need nuclear grid power! Anyone who doesn't see that simply isn't taking climate change seriously.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Fantastic info, Brandon - thank you.

[@martinjoest856]

Where do you want to place 250 extra Hinkley Point units. Are there so many rivers to be heated in summer in GB. What is the time of planing and construction? All at a price point of 12.5 Trillion Pound excluding extras? Who is suppling the Uran? Did you ask for extra time in Sellafield and La Hague? But look on the bright side of it, with the Plutonium you produce , you can build nukes and blow all to pieces if it does not work out.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

@@martinjoest856 Your ignorance is astounding.

[@threelowlys]

The grid will handle all EVs just fine, it's the waiting line in the future that'll kill everyone unless a super-fast charging technology is available.

[@threelowlys]

@@philtimmons722 where is the math you want to present? Renewables are failing to live up to the hype across the globe amid the current energy crisis, energy and inflation is shooting sky high, how do you propose we catch up the shortfall? (And how much land do you need to solve the issue?)

[@RfromG-bd4fb]

Do the right thing to save the planet. Don't buy an electric car. Buy a medium-sized economy car and use E10 fuel. Who said so? Well, BMW for one.

[@TheCarGuysTV]

Yep

[@ajarms86]

Honestly the best break down of what the problem is and what solutions could be, great video!!

[@chiefdenis]

You should also checkout driving 4 answers, he recently did a video on this topic and his breakdown was pretty comprehensive

[@joshuaallen5371]

There is no solution. More mining, more poison, more wars, more death. All for more and more power(electrical and other). Trading one bad idea for a worse. lithium mining is dirty and dangerous. Lithium is poisonous and combustible. Once all the lithium is mined, there will be wars over the next precious metal that can be used. Once they figure out how to entrap 3nergy 8n a large cell enough for a home, the damage will already done, and it will be too far to go back.

[@wt8918]

I agree, balanced and well researched.I never bought in to the whole EV as I couldn't wrap my head around the obvious huge growth needed in mining! I see it as cleaner air , maybe, but mining has been historically harsh on nature, especially water supply and animals.

[@itekani]

@@wt8918 Materials from mining or recycling is going to be needed to make new cars regardless of their propulsion system, unless you make wooden cars or something. You never saw any problems with oil extraction?

[@wt8918]

@@itekani for sure but there's the devil you know and the devil you don't. Another question, why was there not any kind of push to make gas cars more efficient, require car companies to reduce engine sizes(gross amounts of horse power drivers never needed) and reduced vehicle size? They did that under the same auspices in the 70's. No transition to improve and reduce fuel consumption , just stop gas and everyone figure out this new vehicle idea.