It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electric Vehicle CO2 Emissions Higher Than Diesel

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Considering Germany’s current energy mix and the amount of energy used in battery production, the CO2 emissions of battery-electric vehicles are, in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine, and are otherwise much higher. This has been confirmed by a new study by Christoph Buchal, professor of physics at the University of Cologne; Hans-Dieter Karl, long-standing ifo energy expert; and Hans-Werner Sinn, former ifo president and professor emeritus at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. The researchers carried out their detailed calculations using the concrete examples of a modern electric car and a modern diesel vehicle.
www.cesifo-group.de...

I've been watching the enthusiasm for electric bicycles with interest. The folk running the electric bike shops are looking intoxicated and slightly breathless. Asking for details about the batteries brings them down. They know it's a scam. The smug-looking riders of the electric bicycles have a dangerous tendency to look straight ahead and expect pedestrians to get out of their way. I have to wonder how the smug attitude will effect the way electric cars are driven.


Helge Leiro Baastad, CEO of Gjensidige — one of Norway’s largest insurance agencies — tells Bergens Tidende that hybrid and electric cars are involved in more accidents than conventional cars, which in Norway usually means cars with diesel engines. His company has looked at the stats from several thousand accidents that occurred between 2012 and 2017.
cleantechnica.com...

Getting injured while riding an electric bike is as easy as falling off a bike.

In a survey amongst injured cyclists who rode electric bikes, a large proportion had fallen while mounting or dismounting their electric bike.
www.rospa.com...

If they can't get on and off without injuring themselves, what chance do we simple pedestrians have when a fake-greenie on an electric bike rides straight towards us as if we were invisible?

It would seem electric transport is more dangerous and emits more CO2 than the alternatives.


edit on 8 5 2019 by Kester because: punctuation




posted on May, 8 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Kester, as usual you wont get any arguments from me The ignorance within uk governmental circles against diesel engine vehicles here in the UK make me so sad to have any scientific knowledge
The figures are consistently wrong when discussing emissions from vehicles its emotions before facts far to often
Found this quiet interesting too
www.thenewamerican.com...



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Brilliant irony



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I read the articles and the first claims co2 emissions are from battery PRODUCTION.

How does that come close to total co2 emissions over the life of 200,000 miles on a deisel vs electric vehicle.

Sure it takes co2 to make am electric but i havent seen co2 put out by the vehicle.

Is the claim that charging stations create co2 from energy plants?
.
Not getting it.

As far as old folks falling over because bikes are heavy.. duh - age
As far as electric being too stealthy and easily able to fall asleep or not notice them coming.. duh - people have no focus anymore

The co2 though.. don't get it.

b
edit on 8-5-2019 by Bspiracy because: .



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

I've been saying that the co2 costing in the mining and manufacturing process of batteries, electric motors, electronics and solar cells is way higher than gasoline, for years. It's all a scam to divert from one commodity into a spread of many commodities.

If the life of these batteries was 20-50 years at above 95% efficiency, yeah, it would work. Same thing with solar cells, they start depleting seriously after 10 years, effeciency goes way down. If you have a break even point of say 20 years and your equipment will last 50,you have a free zone of 30.but the manufacturers don't want tgat, it's profit over responsibility.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

In 20 years, 200,000 miles on a semi happened at year 2 or less..

How would the production of tesla semi batteries compare to the co2 output of a diesel trucks after 200,000 miles.. or even 5 years of use.. 500,000 miles?

I feel like there's no comparison. But that's just a feeling at this point. Reading around now and haven't gotten facts like these compared just yet.

b



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
If you figure everything in, Electric cars pollute as much or more than some comparable high efficient gas or deisel cars. That was known a decade ago, and nothing has really changed that I know of in that comparison. A solar panel only lasts ten to twelve years and every year loses some efficiency. With everything involved, solar is not much energy efficient, the rare earth elements and recycling procedures do a lot of environmental damage. A big wind will rip those panels out of their sockets.



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bspiracy
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

In 20 years, 200,000 miles on a semi happened at year 2 or less..

How would the production of tesla semi batteries compare to the co2 output of a diesel trucks after 200,000 miles.. or even 5 years of use.. 500,000 miles?

I feel like there's no comparison. But that's just a feeling at this point. Reading around now and haven't gotten facts like these compared just yet.

b


To get an actual footprint, you have start with an equivalent distance and time, so say 100k miles over 6 years. Then you have to take the cost of mining and manufacturing ALL the parts of the vehicle and the cost of all the fuel used by both the vehicle under comparison, but also the costs of the fuel and everything else involved with the employees.

Getting a single sourced fuel out of the ground like oil is way cheaper than mining, lithium, zinc, platinum, gold, palladium, etc. The processing of oil is also centralized in a craxker plant, processing all the materials to make a battery us a huge job. If we take the two bodies and equipment, both electric and gasoline, and just call them equal, the job of determine the costs and subsequent carbon footprint becomes a bit easier.

In the market Nd you can't just say an electric vehicle creates no emissions. Even the electricity produced for charging creates a footprint, but more than that, all the associated manufacturing costs fir the energy source creates a helluva footprint. So, don't let the greenies lie to you, be informed and do the math.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
So sad I feel so sorry for the environment. I thought Elon Musk was a genius. Maybe he should learn about how fire works in a vacuum...why would you shoot a rocket in the sky with fire running it?



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The same goes for the manufactures of the semi . There is also the time effort and co2 consumption from electronics and rubbers and fuel creation etc.

They cancel one another out i would wager.

So after all manufacturing and technology cost both technologies have...

Diesel seems the worse by a magnitude of factors.

b



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bspiracy
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The same goes for the manufactures of the semi . There is also the time effort and co2 consumption from electronics and rubbers and fuel creation etc.

They cancel one another out i would wager.

So after all manufacturing and technology cost both technologies have...

Diesel seems the worse by a magnitude of factors.

b


Actually no, if you cancel out the vehicles that's fine, just don't cancel the energy source. The diesel energy footprint is some during manufacturing and some during use. The battery is more during manufacturing and less during use. I think if you do the math it will be quite apparent, was to me lol

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 8 2019 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester



It would seem electric transport is more dangerous and emits more CO2 than the alternatives.

I would think that the hardest variant to figure out in
the C02 studies would be the driving habits of various
populations.

I had a school teacher once tell me that one of his
students told him that his dad worked for an
American auto maker. The dad's job was to guard
a building that housed a truck that had a
400 HP engine that got 40MPG.
That was over ten years ago.

Let's say that this miracle truck was produced.
I don't think it would cut down on CO2 one bit.
People would just spend the same amount
on fuel and drive even more, giddy with the
fact that they are getting more bang for their
buck .The only benefit of the miracle truck
would be that you can go farther on a tank of
fuel without stopping. CO2 emmissions would
stay the same.

I hate to think it, but I surmise that the players
in the CO2 game realize two things:

1.) Miracle truck won't help at all, so don't
promote the technology.

2.) The reduction of CO2 is easier accomplished
with economic throttling of the populace,
rather than technological throttling of CO2
via solar, electric, etc.



posted on May, 9 2019 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

Wasn't there a thread already about it?

The specific calculations have been done for Germany. They produce almost half of their electricity burning coal. So of course their CO2 emissions will be crap.

Now do those calculations for other countries and see if diesel still does better than electric.



posted on May, 9 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

I am old; I like to ride my bike. I power it with my legs. Who needs an electric bike?



posted on May, 9 2019 @ 06:21 PM
link   
debunked electectric vs deisel co2.. apr 2019

An article supporting my side, but numbers can always be fudged towards a given slant.

b



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Bspiracy

It does not. The article is propaganda. To understand you need to look at the LCA. The life cycle anyalasis and that tells a very different story.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bspiracy
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

In 20 years, 200,000 miles on a semi happened at year 2 or less..

How would the production of tesla semi batteries compare to the co2 output of a diesel trucks after 200,000 miles.. or even 5 years of use.. 500,000 miles?

I feel like there's no comparison. But that's just a feeling at this point. Reading around now and haven't gotten facts like these compared just yet.

b


You're comparing apples to oranges, friend. A "semi" is a delivery vehicle that usually runs on diesel. There are a growing number of every day driver vehicles currently running on diesel, though. Those rigs likely aren't being driven 200,000 miles in 2 years unless they're fleet vehicles. So either we compare commuter vehicles to commuter e-bikes in this discussion, or we go whole hog and talk about semis while pondering the efficacy of using an e-bike to haul freight.



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Well link me like i did yall
b
edit on 11-5-2019 by Bspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Maybe i wasnt specific enough.
Tesla has already pre-sold many semi trucks meant for constant delivery. 150000 miles is waaay less than expected use.

The article also highlights typical electric car vs typical diesel use started from creation towards practical use vs scrap use as well.

Your view nor mine has been validated by any all knowing source. Its all number crunching.

Kinda like red vs blue nowadays

b


edit on 11-5-2019 by Bspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

"I am old; I like to ride my bike. I power it with my legs. Who needs an electric bike?"

I sometimes use an electric bike to get to work. It allows me to climb 15 degree hills without sweating. Arriving to work only minutes latter than by car. Saving me $3 a day in fuel in the process.

I also exercise a couple thousand kilometres each year on a normal bike (somewhat normal, a lwb recumbent). Seeking hills to strengthen my legs and cardiovascular system.

I prefer riding my recumbent.




top topics



 
12

log in

join