Will EVs Deliver on Decarbonization?

[@lindsaydempsey5683]

As an aside, I once flirted with the idea of buying an EV, I wanted a nice one, an expensive one, with ~400 km range on a good day. Being an engineer I did an analysis on my use case, and it simply didn't add up for me. My annual mileage was only 15,000 km, I have a perfectly sound 10 year old efficient ICE vehicle that runs great. My analysis showed that for my use case with such low annual km, it simply did not make sense by any measure. It was a financial disaster, even though running costs would be very low and on a carbon budget basis I worked out that I would have to drive it for 10 years to get to the carbon break-even point, so from a GHG emissions perspective it would also be a very poor deal. From that knowledge I now keenly support the idea of BEV's for vehicles that do high annual miles as the first priority. Putting an EV in every driveway is simply bad, ineffective and expensive policy. All GHG initiatives should IMHO, have to pass a life cycle evaluation that meets a certain $/t CO2 saved criteria AND we should prioritize options on that basis. If we don't do that, we'll end up investing in the wrong things.

[@chrisjohns38]

Try cradle to grave human mortality rate per km on for a metric!

[@Weberseon]

If you drive on average less than 300 km per week, why do you need 400 km range? You can charge the car while it is standing around (e.g. while you sleep, work, shop or work out). I used to commute 300 km a week with an EV that has 90 km realistic range. Occasionally, I did 400 km in a day (with fast charging stops). Why would it be bad from a GHG emissions perspective to break even after 10 years? Do you think the EV is trash after 10 years and 150k km? BTW, batteries can have a second live as stationary energy storage.

[@chapter4travels]

I don't know who can afford a new gasoline car, let alone an EV. Our government is kneecapping our economy every chance it gets, so who would take a chance on a 10-year note on an EV? Subsidizing rich people to buy EVs and increasing energy costs are perfect examples.

[@ninefox344]

I don't know why anyone would pay for a brand new car when older cars seem to work just as well for a third of the price and don't have all the annoying touchscreen antics.

[@trojanthedog]

EVs have only ever promised that they can remove tail pipe pollution from cities and towns. This is exactly what they are good at. Everything else is incidental but happily rather good.

[@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi]

"EVs have only ever promised that they can remove tail pipe pollution from cities and towns. " exactly , they're not really needed outside the cities

[@chrisjohns38]

@@EmilNicolaiePerhinschias was pointed out, cradle to grave, EVs are no bargain, in fact, they are losers.

[@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi]

@@chrisjohns38 that was not the point, the point is EVs help with urban pollution

[@chrisjohns38]

@@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi Yes, I understand, but only so far as local deathprint is concerned. Globally, the deathprint, cradle to grave, is higher per mile. So the point is a shaky one🙂.

[@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi]

@@chrisjohns38 "deathprint" sorry, I won't engage further, I am tired of luddites whether they are on the left or on the right

[@craigchamberlain1]

Sorry Chris but you let this guy get away with too much unchecked missinformation. +3k is not an order of magnitude more expensive than 30k for a cheap car and even less so for a 70k car. Harvard should be able to find someone more numerically literate. Also if you can afford a reliable car, feul and insurance your already doing ok. For the dense environments where private ev ownership is a bad fit, public transport not ice is the answer and would actually help the poorest %50 the most. Please do look at how holland have flooded dense streers with low power overnight ev chargers too it is tottaly possible.

[@chigeh]

Doesn't he say around 04:45 that the cheaper way to decarbonize transport for the poor would be to incentivize public transport?

[@TheMighty_T]

The upfront environmental cost of EV's is not nothing. We are talking about an industrial process. It is the long tail cost combined with cheaper clean energy production options that make EV's part of the solution to anthropomorphic climate change (man made climate change). Obviously the fossil fuel industry is worried about what this all means for their vast profits under the current fossil fuel burning economy, which is why they fund all the misinformation efforts currently ongoing. The challenge for them is how to transition their business so they can make money and not be part of the problem that is going to crash modern human civilization. It's possible, but not easy.

[@Wambamdoozle]

They aren't worried at all. all the wind and solar deployed haven't reduced fuel consumption for power generation.

[@chrisjohns38]

Back in the 60s and 70s, fossil fuel giants went nuclear as in Exxon Nuclear.

[@chrisjohns38]

How about EV versus Prius hybrid(no plug). I’ll assume tesla3 versus Toyota Prius hybrid, Germany residence, 15,000km per year. The question is when does the Tesla3 break even with the Prius hybrid with regards to co2 emissions, including manufacturing. The Tesla is assumed to be built in China and the Prius, in Japan. I find that the battery manufacturer alone results in 2.5-16 tons of co2 released. The Prius emits 78gm co2/km. 78gx15000km/1000000g/(metric ton)=~1ton/year for the Prius. So, neglecting the real German energy mix to charge the EV, it’s going to take 2-16 years to break even? Can’t be right, embarrass me with my mistakes please. No let’s add the emissions from producing the electricity! The CO₂ emissions factor in the German electricity mix was 380 grams per kilowatt hour, based on initial estimates for 2023. 115wh/km for the Tesla3 according to TeslaBro. So .380g/whx115wh/km=43.7g/km So for 15,000km/year, that .6tons of co2! 1-.6=.4tons/year that the EV gains on the Prius! So it takes at least 5 years to pay off the co2 debit of the standard range Tesla3 battery and as much as 40years if you use the high end estimate of the production data. Let’s go with the middle estimate of 9 tons of co2 or 26 years to pay off the carbon dioxide debit!!!! Hybrid wins by far.

[@lindsaydempsey5683]

Interesting thoughts, some challenging thoughts. I'm not sympathetic to opportunity cost of charging argument, yes that's an issue if you're renting and can't charge at home, maybe you can't charge at work either. But that group is a small subset of EV owners. For that group, we can provide accommodations, for example mandate that for every 20 parking spaces in parking buildings there must be at least one Level 2 charger available. You don't need to charge every day, most urban driving requires just one or two charges per week. Then over time and with the money recovered from those level 2 changing stations increase the required number of chargers from 1/20 to 1/15 to 1/10 to 1/5 or whatever the right number is. Provide tax breaks to employers who invest in providing Level 2 chargers to their employee parking areas. Many outdoor car parks in Canada have block heating outlets already, so some of that infrastructure is already there. Even Level 1 charging from a puny 120V 15A wall outlet can go a long way. I worked out that charging at work on Level 1, an extension cord, 8 hours a day, three days a week was enough of a charge to cover a whole week of my motoring. It's a serious challenge (renters with no access to overnight Level 1 or 2 charging), but there are some modestly priced solutions to serve that small specific subset of EV users.

[@pascalbercker7487]

I live in an apartment - in a small town - in France. There are very few charging stations. EVs for people like me makes no current sense at all.

[@lindsaydempsey5683]

@@pascalbercker7487 Do you think that if there was more Level 2 chargers available in places like supermarkets, car parking structures or workplaces, would that make a difference for someone in your situation? As a practical aside, I can report that a former colleague of mine was head of a task force for a while, for the utility company that he works for that did on-premise installation and upgrades to support level 2 charging infrastructure for businesses. Every single installation in his telling, needed an upgrade of on-site transformers or the main supply connection to the site. Every installation that he saw required some kind of change or reinforcement on the supply side, and that's expensive. There are no free lunches in this space.

[@chrisjohns38]

An urban driver would not be an eco friendly ev owner

[@alisonmcgillivray8008]

I was thinking my next car might be a hybrid (living in rural Ontario with long commute times I figured this would insure flexibility of destination against running out of juice in winter)... . BUT THEN I googled the overall mileage of a hybrid 2024 Honda RV against my current 18 year old Honda Fit internal combustion engine vehicle... They are essentially the same. 2024= 7 L per 100 K while my 2006 FIT still gets 500 Klicks for a tank of 35 liters... Given the almost 2 decades lagtime for fuel efficiency to improve, how can this possibly be? Is the electric part of a hybrid merely powering the fancy electric add-ons your guest mentioned in the new cars while the actual rubber hitting the road is still only gas powered? Is only stop-and-go city driving powered by electricity in hybrids?

[@kowalityjesus]

Superb content as always Dr K!!!

[@thanes69]

This “opportunity cost” statement is ridiculous.

[@davidbarry6900]

If we actually were to try decarbonize personal transport (I have no idea if it will be possible to do so for the trucking industry), it might look something like: - bicycles and ebikes for moving people around local urban areas - Shared ("temporary use on demand") local hybrid cars available for those same people in each neighborhood for carrying cargo or other situations where a bicycle is insufficient. (Hybrid rather than EV because there is too much uncertainty about recharging times, affecting vehicle availability to users.) - Personal small EVs for local use, mainly for people with mobility issues that preclude them using bicycles or require specialized supports (wheelchairs etc.) - well-connected light rail and/or other rapid transit systems (with plenty of bicycle parking and shared/rental bicycles near each node) allowing people to travel further afield when needed - ICE/diesel vehicle rentals available (although not cheap) for longer duration or distance travel requirements, although priced such that a rail trip and local rental at destination would usually be cheaper. The Netherlands is closest to this scenario so far, although there is still a strong culture of personal car ownership.

[@MaxPower-11]

Electric vehicles are simpler to manufacture than ICE vehicles and the future reduction in the cost of EVs is dependent on further improvements in battery chemistry, performance and efficiency. Where I would differ with the guest is that I am much more optimistic with respect to those advancements. There are constant innovations being made in this field and occasionally even novel discoveries are happening. This, coupled with better economies of scale as more batteries get produced will eventually bring down the cost of batteries such that EVs will eventually cost less to produce than ICE vehicles. In my opinion this is way more inevitable than what the guest proposes. I will agree with him though that the timeline for this might not be as fast as some might hope. My sense, based on how quickly the technology is advancing is that we’re looking at about 6-8 years out but I have a strong sense that we will get there.

[@glhfin]

47:28 I am paraphrasing Doomberg, that we have been reading about battery breakthroughs for over 30 years. Also, the chance of any breakthrough that significantly changes the environmental costs and energy density are slim.

[@MaxPower-11]

@@glhfin Well, batteries have indeed improved immensely and have come down in cost by a lot in the past 30 years. There’s more to come.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

​​@@MaxPower-11 *_"1976:_* Stanley Whittingham and his colleagues at Exxon demonstrated what can be considered *_the first rechargeable "lithium-ion battery",_* although not a single component in this design was used in commercial lithium-ion batteries later." There has been no improvement in batteries in 30 years.

[@victorferguson874]

Come on. If we just wish hard enough surely the new technology will somehow appear. ​@aliendroneservices6621

[@Tom-dt4ic]

@@aliendroneservices6621 Of course you couldn't be more wrong. Batteries have improved hugely in many very important areas. And batteries are currently getting better, not by the year, but by the month. Among the very important areas where batteries have drastically improved: energy density, charging speed, and most important, total cost of production. The past is past.

[@huna1950]

I do have doubts he’s saying most EVs are bought as second cars….I’ve spoken to or know about 30 people with EVs..I’d say 5 were bought as a second car

[@lindsaydempsey5683]

I'm not sure that they being purchased as second cars, but most people I know with EV's are in a family situation with kids and the run one EV and one ICE vehicle and they use each technology for what it does best usually putting the highest mileage on the EV due to being newer, nicer and having much lower fuel costs when charging at home. That said, due charging infrastructure concerns, or being in a hurry, or the high cost many fast chargers, they sometimes take the ICE vehicle for long distance trips.

[@drttgb4955]

nothing about the recent 1.4 million ton oil spill in the Philippines ?

[@davidmitchell4077]

The origin of "zero emission vehicle" designations is for criteria pollutant emissions including ozone precursors, CO, and particulates. These are local and regional pollutants of concern with health based standards, so tailpipe emission controls are critical for addressing those impacts . GHG emissions are global and have no direct health effects, so the location of the emission generation is not a factor. This means that GHG emission related to EVs should include the power plant emissions and manufacturing emissions when determining whether an EV reduces impacts on climate change. The benefits of EVs in terms of lifetime GHG emission reductions depends on the source of electricity used to charge the batteries . Places like California have a relatively clean electric generation portfolio, while places that rely more on coal for power generation have higher emissions per kWh of electricity. If you charge the battery at home and have solar panels installed you can emit close to net zero emissions on average. As stated in the video, the time to offset manufacturing emissions will vary depending on the size of the battery and efficiency of the car. I drive a heavy Audi SUV with a 95 kW battery, but offset more emissions long term with solar panels. The car averages 2.5 miles/kWh.

[@chrisjohns38]

Thumbs up except that California power is NOT low CO2 or polluting when you chase down the whole grid, cradle to grave. Before you shit yourself, repeat after me, cradle to grave per kWh delivered. And who the rich mother f er can afford to wait around to charge their vehicle from solar panels if they’re actually a worker person, not a computer jockey working a silly remote job?

[@chrisjohns38]

Great show! “Something will come up in the future…” That statement cuts through a lot of BS. Acknowledging reality is currently out of style so it’s nice to hear. Thanks for that.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

EV's are great. i love them. EV scooters / flat board scooters, EV bicycles also EV busses, EV trains / trams. A 700hp 3 ton missile that will guillotine any pedestrians & people in smaller cars - really are just a terrible idea. Also building sprawling suburbia where people are so distant from each other. What a rubbish idea. Now then in the uk the estimate is that 44% of the population do not have access to home charging & premium outdoor charging makes petrol actually a cheaper option. Going to quote elon here "the best part is no part"... arrange towns to not require driving to go get a coffee.

[@NomenNescio99]

Designed cities doesn't work, it has been proven empirically time and time again. Most people want a single family home with a garden.

[@Andriastravels]

EV's have much higher tire particulate emissions, a serious downside not highlighted. Obviously, those big heavy tires wearing down pollute the environment. Smaller batteries help in that regard.

[@maxmn5821]

Do you think could get Dr. Jeremy Whitlock on the show for a short CANDU masterclass? Greetings from Germany and thanks for a great podcast.

[@mujdawood7892]

China has city pollution problem, that's why they have to electrify their transportation system. They actually installed the charging infrastructure first before selling electric vehicles. We don't have the pollution problems in our cities in the west from burning coal .

[@tigertiger1699]

They’re going to make one hell o recycling n pollution nightmare

[@bobdeverell]

For many, the goal of the transition to EV technology is about moving society to a new paradigm. For me it has nothing to do with decarbonisation. Moving from whale oil opened up the pharmaceutical and fertilizer industries. Electrification will speedmany new technologies from V2G to robotics etc. .

[@subumohapatra]

PHEV are costly now because they are not manufactured in large quantities. The innovations that PHEV bring is just superior. You don't get range anxiety, don't overload the grid. Can go on road trips without much planning ( freedom). There is no complexity of a transmission gear most complexity is in softwares and almost zero emissions. If you're a household with 2 cars then second one should be EV but you have only 1 car ( majority) then PHEV is the best substitute for the ICE car. So honestly if a manufacturer can bring down the cost of PHEV then they will mostly capture the market whatever left after Tesla. Honestly not everyone likes a Tesla but from utility point of view Tesla is another level there is no competition.

[@albertomontafia1244]

What he said about Norway is just plain wrong. First hand experience is, people REPLACE their ICE cars with EVs here. Not one, but two. But then again there is a whole bunch of reasons EV is so high in Norway compared to anywhere else, from high taxation of ICE to high average household electricity use. Anyway, the episode is not about Norway

[@NathanHearn-ms7vv]

EV’s would make a lot of sense if the vehicles were built to minimize their limitations. EV’s should be small to keep the weight down. If you build EV’s to look like and compete with larger cars, much less pickup snd SUV’s, then you are defeating the entire premise of EV’s as being part of the solution of decarbonization. EV’s are just another expensive consumer product that is at best a lateral move from traditional ICE vehicles in terms of its impact on climate change. The problem isn't the technology but the tastes of car buyers and the inherent destructiveness of consumerism.

[@Loanshark753]

Nope consumers are fickle winning them over is hard and higher gas and diesel taxes might help. If electric vehicles are only available as small cars how would a buyer be convinced to A) choose electric and B) a smaller car, that is two changes instead of one. Of course I would personally like to own a super aerodynamic electric car, but at the present moment CUVs are popular.

[@davidbarry6900]

A few other factors driving the trend towards larger EVs: - modern safety regulations require a lot of crash survivability, i.e. stronger frame and more airbags etc, i.e. more weight, ie. heavier battery necessary to move the vehicle. Ideally there should be lower requirements for EVs specifically being used only in low-speed town areas (golf-cart style) - People around the world are getting older and heavier - a LOT heavier than the average in the early 20th century. Wider seating means wider cars which means heavier and more expensive cars. - People have simply become more accustomed to comfort, especially air-conditioning, which is a big power hog, much more noticeable in an EV (reduces range) than ICE car. Other gadgets and enhancements (better braking systems) also add to the weight i.e. power/battery requirements as well as price tag - dynamics of pre-existing large car use in North America - people don't feel safe driving a mini on the same roads as many F150s; you also can't see what's on the road ahead when behind a big vehicle. - Design inertia in the car companies is definitely a factor too though, at least in North America. They became addicted to getting slightly more profit per unit off bigger cars for decades; they haven't been forced to try innovate or even design any small cars for too long. That doesn't explain the European car manufacturers having the same problems of course.

[@jimmckinley8110]

I sense a lot of Fossil Fuel industry influence in these speakers.

[@jamescoppe]

He does a good job of presenting opinion as fact.

[@tigertiger1699]

EVs are nuts..

[@umka7536]

China builds the most amount of new coal power plants. How is this decarbonization? It is just deception. China forces EVs not because of decarbonization, but to support their EV producers. Ask your guests - how is it going in China with EV recycling? What is the mean average life time of an EV? What about fields of produced and unsold EVs in China?

[@Weberseon]

I'm a regular Decouple listener and a Patreon, but I find this episode very disappointing. It's mostly bashing EVs with common misconceptions. The question should be "can EVs help to decouple economic growth from environmental impact?" and the answer is YES. They can provide the same or better service for a lot of people, while causing less emissions. That's not even an opinion, it's a reality. The anti-EV arguments mentioned in this podcast are equivalent to "nuclear is too expensive, too slow and the waste is a problem". Range: Most cars are driven less than 50 km per day, while drivers want at least 400 km range. That doesn't make sense, but fast charging solved this problem already 10 years ago. Charging: It's possible to charge over night from a standard 10A 230V socket. Cars are normally standing around for at least 20 hours a day. If you want to charge faster, installing an 11kW charger is easy and cheap. As a fan of nuclear energy, it makes perfect sense to charge your EV at night to keep demand near constant. Subsidies: Just stop subsidizing fossil fuels and let them pay for CO2 emissions, health effects and environmental impact. Then you don't have to subsidize clean electricity and EVs. What is true though is that there are very few options for low cost EVs. To minimize the cost to you and the environment, you should choose the smallest car with the smallest battery, which is still feasible for you.

[@jackiepie7423]

he is forgetting to add in the excess wear and tear upon the roadway that e.v.s will bring. smearing the petro asphalt and pouring concrete across the land is a greenhouse agent in itself. Bad ! Bad! Bad economist! no greenbacks for you !

[@Ln-cq8zu]

How can they electrify the vehicles that do the most milage, when they will need yo be charged even more than any orher vehicle? They would have to be on charge more than they are on the road.

[@rw-xf4cb]

Work from Home and better public transport would probably do more for the supposed carbon foot print.

[@salpon]

100%

[@aliendroneservices6621]

Learn about data-centers.

[@rw-xf4cb]

@@aliendroneservices6621 in regards to EVs? If you want bang for buck then housing with solar and batteries but yeah nuclear powered datacenters would probably help too!

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@rw-xf4cb You use data-centers when you *_"work from home"._*

[@dastankuspaev9217]

How do I know that you will deliver? You don't 😅😂

[@chigeh]

Is this the decouple show or the status quo show?

[@TheDanEdwards]

Nunes rolls out all the usual hot buttons about EVs, almost like a pro (hint: he is.) He talks about the up-front carbon emissions from manufacture... but doesn't talk about how an ICE over its 200,000 lifetime will emit much more. He throws out range anxiety topics... because they play to a certain audience. Ashley Nunes is one of those who puts on a patina of acknowledgement of the reality of climate change, but he never wants to commit to any agenda to address it. He's part of a class of pundits where there is _concern_ but not commitment. And his history of writing on various topics, including EVs but on other societal issues, his association with right-wing climate-denial outlets, tells me that you picked this guest exactly to diss EVs.

[@pascalbercker7487]

That's nothing but baseless slander. Christopher Hitchens once said that anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are dismissed.

[@bblackburn1823]

Yes, I agree that Nunes is not an advocate, but an informed source of information. Try Canary Media, (funded by the Hewitts) for a more enthusiastic promotion of EVs.

[@tigertiger1699]

A proper Mic would be great…….

[@thanes69]

Discussion of price drops is clearly wrong. Prices are demonstrably falling by large amounts in the major markets and by the better makers. Battery price drops are undeniable. I’m not sure if I can finish a thing something so utterly wrong on this point. Don’t talk to libertarians. They are ideological fanatics. This is like talking to a fundamentalist about cosmology.

[@chrisconklin2981]

The goal is, as you say: "Decarbonization". The reason is global warming and it's accelerating effect upon life on earth. Pity you did not mention the bicycle capital of the world, Amsterdam, Netherlands. You spent too much time talking about cars. As more people move into urban areas, urban design becomes more important. It is more of a question of how to phase out suburbia.

[@Krasbin]

Great point. I would like to add that cycling is the norm for most people in all cities, not just Amsterdam. And that there is cycling infrastructure everywhere in the Netherlands, even in rural areas. Where I live, in Groningen, there are now even “cycling highways” radiating out from the city to about 10 to 15 km into the countryside in addition to the existing cycling infrastructure, which was already quite dense.

[@davesundaram1647]

This guy made no sense at all.

[@stevebeschakis9775]

The two scariest words in the English language: "Chinese car."

[@kaya051285]

Governments could ban gasoline vehciles by 2030 and society would still function The consumer will just have to move down one segment if EVs are more costly (but hopefully EVs will be similar price by then) So someone who might have purchseed a gasoline Audi Q5 might not be able to afford the electric Q5. Instead, they will buy the electric Q3 not the end of the world

[@srb1855]

Spoken like a true apparatchik.🇷🇺

[@pascalbercker7487]

@kaya051285: "Governments could ban gasoline vehicles b 203x and society would still function" where x is whatever figure you care to put. You felt no need to give data - so I'm doing likewise. In the end I use Hitchens' rule. Christopher Hitchens once said that anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I thus dismiss your statement without further ado.

[@kaya051285]

@pascalbercker7487 stop being so melodramatic. EVs work the only issue is their price which probably will close the gap w gasoline

[@Wambamdoozle]

​@kaya051285 "probably". You're dismissed brother