Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

ABrass

JKenH said:

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Taking into account greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles for transportation de-carbonization

Scientific paper which reaches an interesting conclusion. You will need to read the paper to fully understand why.

The preferential plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) treatments in existing light-duty vehicle (LDV) fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations were intended to help jump-start PEV production and market deployment. They have certainly served that purpose, but at the price of increased GHG emissions. We estimate that the preferential treatments in terms of the PEV dilution and leakage effects result in a GHG emissions increase of 1094 million tonnes of CO2eq associated with LDVs sold in 2012–2025 in China, the U.S., and the EU.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002238

Study funded by Saudi Arabia's national oil company says that EVs are bad. What a shocker.

No, it doesn’t say that EVs are bad. I know you like to challenge what I post but if that is the only conclusion you can draw I would respectfully request you read the article again without any preconceptions. 

The point is that the average fleet emissions policies governments are adopting in assuming EVs have zero emissions and giving super credits means that ICEs on the fleet can have higher emissions. If we want to genuinely get vehicle CO2 emissions down it would be better if EVs lifetime emissions (and ICE lifetime emissions for that matter) were used.

This produces the ridiculous situation have that ICE manufacturers can buy EV credits from pure EV manufacturers rather than cut their own emissions. 

Most scientific research is funded by some party. Are we to limit science to funding from ideologically approved sources? I suspect the answer from some people would be YES. 

Why is that ridiculous? It supports EV manufacturing and reduces the whole fleet emissions. Who cares if the EVs are Stellar is or Ford built?

In fact it's probably more effective as it has to offend investors that they're paying a competitor because they can't do it.

ABrass

JKenH said:

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Taking into account greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles for transportation de-carbonization

Scientific paper which reaches an interesting conclusion. You will need to read the paper to fully understand why.

The preferential plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) treatments in existing light-duty vehicle (LDV) fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations were intended to help jump-start PEV production and market deployment. They have certainly served that purpose, but at the price of increased GHG emissions. We estimate that the preferential treatments in terms of the PEV dilution and leakage effects result in a GHG emissions increase of 1094 million tonnes of CO2eq associated with LDVs sold in 2012–2025 in China, the U.S., and the EU.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002238

Study funded by Saudi Arabia's national oil company says that EVs are bad. What a shocker.

This study was supported by the Aramco Services Company and the U.S. Department of Energy

It's a deliberately very narrow study, it's also based on the IEAs predictions of energy breakdown which are famously bad.

Now here’s an article you can really get your teeth into.

A case for the internal combustion engine powered vehicle

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339629819_ScienceDirect_A_case_for_the_internal_combustion_engine_powered_vehicle

Well it's nice you're being clear about just sticking stuff up to troll for a reaction.

Exiled_Tyke

JKenH said:

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Taking into account greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles for transportation de-carbonization

Scientific paper which reaches an interesting conclusion. You will need to read the paper to fully understand why.

The preferential plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) treatments in existing light-duty vehicle (LDV) fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations were intended to help jump-start PEV production and market deployment. They have certainly served that purpose, but at the price of increased GHG emissions. We estimate that the preferential treatments in terms of the PEV dilution and leakage effects result in a GHG emissions increase of 1094 million tonnes of CO2eq associated with LDVs sold in 2012–2025 in China, the U.S., and the EU.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002238

Study funded by Saudi Arabia's national oil company says that EVs are bad. What a shocker.

This study was supported by the Aramco Services Company and the U.S. Department of Energy

It's a deliberately very narrow study, it's also based on the IEAs predictions of energy breakdown which are famously bad.

Now here’s an article you can really get your teeth into.

A case for the internal combustion engine powered vehicle

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339629819_ScienceDirect_A_case_for_the_internal_combustion_engine_powered_vehicle

What a terrible paper this is.  Statements such as "The erroneous idea of saying that electric vehicles are free of greenhouse gas emission needs to be dealt away with" indicate the level of bias.  I haven't met anyone who has made such a claim. 

The two great failures of the paper however are:

1.  It has not adequately addressed the prospective change in electricity generation from carbon to renewables. It pretty much assumes there will be no change in the current mix.  I think everyone on these boards understands the basic fact that EVs will only be beneficial when accompanied by a move away from carbon based electricity.  
2.  It is also advocating that bio-fuels support the case for the ICE but does not consider the practicalities of this on a global scale. (I'm sure I read somewhere that to achieve the levels needed food production would be woefully inadequate). 

I would love to know who has sponsored this paper.  I can find little evidence to verify the credibility of the authors, although I did find a paper on developing the bio-fuel industry in Africa.    I cannot find evidence of which peers reviewed this paper.   Currently neither the credibility of the authors or the content of the paper are convincing. 

ABrass

Exiled_Tyke said:

JKenH said:

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Taking into account greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles for transportation de-carbonization

Scientific paper which reaches an interesting conclusion. You will need to read the paper to fully understand why.

The preferential plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) treatments in existing light-duty vehicle (LDV) fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations were intended to help jump-start PEV production and market deployment. They have certainly served that purpose, but at the price of increased GHG emissions. We estimate that the preferential treatments in terms of the PEV dilution and leakage effects result in a GHG emissions increase of 1094 million tonnes of CO2eq associated with LDVs sold in 2012–2025 in China, the U.S., and the EU.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002238

Study funded by Saudi Arabia's national oil company says that EVs are bad. What a shocker.

This study was supported by the Aramco Services Company and the U.S. Department of Energy

It's a deliberately very narrow study, it's also based on the IEAs predictions of energy breakdown which are famously bad.

Now here’s an article you can really get your teeth into.

A case for the internal combustion engine powered vehicle

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339629819_ScienceDirect_A_case_for_the_internal_combustion_engine_powered_vehicle

What a terrible paper this is.  Statements such as "The erroneous idea of saying that electric vehicles are free of greenhouse gas emission needs to be dealt away with" indicate the level of bias.  I haven't met anyone who has made such a claim. 

The two great failures of the paper however are:

1.  It has not adequately addressed the prospective change in electricity generation from carbon to renewables. It pretty much assumes there will be no change in the current mix.  I think everyone on these boards understands the basic fact that EVs will only be beneficial when accompanied by a move away from carbon based electricity.  
2.  It is also advocating that bio-fuels support the case for the ICE but does not consider the practicalities of this on a global scale. (I'm sure I read somewhere that to achieve the levels needed food production would be woefully inadequate). 

I would love to know who has sponsored this paper.  I can find little evidence to verify the credibility of the authors, although I did find a paper on developing the bio-fuel industry in Africa.    I cannot find evidence of which peers reviewed this paper.   Currently neither the credibility of the authors or the content of the paper are convincing. 

It looks like an Undergraduate paper, a bad one. Who references Wikipedia?

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

JKenH said:

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Taking into account greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles for transportation de-carbonization

Scientific paper which reaches an interesting conclusion. You will need to read the paper to fully understand why.

The preferential plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) treatments in existing light-duty vehicle (LDV) fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations were intended to help jump-start PEV production and market deployment. They have certainly served that purpose, but at the price of increased GHG emissions. We estimate that the preferential treatments in terms of the PEV dilution and leakage effects result in a GHG emissions increase of 1094 million tonnes of CO2eq associated with LDVs sold in 2012–2025 in China, the U.S., and the EU.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002238

Study funded by Saudi Arabia's national oil company says that EVs are bad. What a shocker.

This study was supported by the Aramco Services Company and the U.S. Department of Energy

It's a deliberately very narrow study, it's also based on the IEAs predictions of energy breakdown which are famously bad.

Now here’s an article you can really get your teeth into.

A case for the internal combustion engine powered vehicle

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339629819_ScienceDirect_A_case_for_the_internal_combustion_engine_powered_vehicle

What a terrible paper this is.  Statements such as "The erroneous idea of saying that electric vehicles are free of greenhouse gas emission needs to be dealt away with" indicate the level of bias.  I haven't met anyone who has made such a claim. 

The two great failures of the paper however are:

1.  It has not adequately addressed the prospective change in electricity generation from carbon to renewables. It pretty much assumes there will be no change in the current mix.  I think everyone on these boards understands the basic fact that EVs will only be beneficial when accompanied by a move away from carbon based electricity.  
2.  It is also advocating that bio-fuels support the case for the ICE but does not consider the practicalities of this on a global scale. (I'm sure I read somewhere that to achieve the levels needed food production would be woefully inadequate). 

I would love to know who has sponsored this paper.  I can find little evidence to verify the credibility of the authors, although I did find a paper on developing the bio-fuel industry in Africa.    I cannot find evidence of which peers reviewed this paper.   Currently neither the credibility of the authors or the content of the paper are convincing. 

Exactly, it is a terrible article, totally full of bias pushing a pro ICE agenda.  I wouldn’t even call it a paper. I don’t think the author read it through let alone had it peer reviewed. There is all sorts of garbage about on the internet that one can post in support of a particular point of view or new technology. We get loads of it on here particularly from organisations touting a particular point of view that is unequivocally one sided. That’s ok though as long as it is unashamedly pro EV/RE. 

I try and post stuff that has some merit usually putting across an alternative point of view that perhaps hadn’t been considered. I thought the paper about government policies promoting EVs was interesting because it seemed to suggest that the policy of combining ICE and EV emissions could be detrimental to CO2 emissions, allowing some manufacturers like JLR who buy credits from Tesla to continue making high CO2 emitting cars. Without those credits they would be forced to make lower emission ICEVs. 

This forum needs to be more than a channel churning out pro RE press releases and shouting down any one who puts forward an alternative point of view. It also needs to be less tribal, less cult like less insecure, perhaps. EVs and RE are here to stay. Fossil fuels are on the way out so why does everyone get so up set if a downside to a particular RE technology is mentioned? No technology is perfect, they all have pros and cons. It’s good to hear both sides (or rather to most people it is). I welcome reasoned argument in response to something I post but when a contributor ascribes a totally different interpretation eg that “EVs are bad” when nothing like that has been suggested or falls back on the old cliche that it is the oil industry up to its tricks again and then gets multiple thanks it just demeans the whole forum. 

JKenH

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Taking into account greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles for transportation de-carbonization

Scientific paper which reaches an interesting conclusion. You will need to read the paper to fully understand why.

The preferential plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) treatments in existing light-duty vehicle (LDV) fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations were intended to help jump-start PEV production and market deployment. They have certainly served that purpose, but at the price of increased GHG emissions. We estimate that the preferential treatments in terms of the PEV dilution and leakage effects result in a GHG emissions increase of 1094 million tonnes of CO2eq associated with LDVs sold in 2012–2025 in China, the U.S., and the EU.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002238

Study funded by Saudi Arabia's national oil company says that EVs are bad. What a shocker.

This study was supported by the Aramco Services Company and the U.S. Department of Energy

It's a deliberately very narrow study, it's also based on the IEAs predictions of energy breakdown which are famously bad.

Now here’s an article you can really get your teeth into.

A case for the internal combustion engine powered vehicle

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339629819_ScienceDirect_A_case_for_the_internal_combustion_engine_powered_vehicle

Well it's nice you're being clear about just sticking stuff up to troll for a reaction.

I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist it. 

thevilla

Let's not just focus on gg emissions.  ICEVs can never be clean.

EVs reduce pollution from brake and tyres

EVs reduce particle pollution

EVs eliminate all toxic emissions from engines

Emissions from brakes and tyres must be regulated

https://epha.org/electric-vehicles-and-air-pollution-the-claims-and-the-facts/

Grumpy_chap

Exiled_Tyke said:

What a terrible paper this is.  Statements such as "The erroneous idea of saying that electric vehicles are free of greenhouse gas emission needs to be dealt away with" indicate the level of bias.  I haven't met anyone who has made such a claim. 

I think there are a great many members of the general public for whom the claim that "EV's are free of greenhouse gas emissions" would be considered to be the consensus opinion.

This is promoted by Government:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-zero-emission-vehicles
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables

Campaign groups:
https://www.theclimategroup.org/our-work/resources/taking-action-zero-emission-vehicles-united-kingdom

Manufacturer claims:
https://www.electricdrives.tv/post/bmw-show-the-world-their-latest-ix-zero-emission-electric-car

Press:
https://businessmotoring.co.uk/government-announces-zev-strategy/

To be honest, for most of the public, I suspect they aren't that interested - the focus is on what the car costs them and do they like the car.  Whether the car is "zero-emissions" or "zero tailpipe emissions" is a finesse that does not matter.  It must be good because the VED rate is £nil and there was a discount from the Government to buy the car (is that still available?).  Thinking a step away that "zero emissions" depends on the way the electricity is generated is a complexity many people simply won't think about.  Consideration of embedded energy / emissions in the build of the car and even embedded impact of the solar panels that actually allow a car to operate with zero emissions is really outside what the vast majority of people will think about when making their choice of car.

So, considering all the above, I think the claim that "EV's are free of greenhouse gas emissions" is so widespread and common place as to be prevailing viewpoint in the current time.

There are occasionally comments that challenge the norm:
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/opinion/354671/electric-cars-have-zero-emissions-we-must-consider-how-we-generate-electricity-them

There may even be hope.  It was once the prevailing viewpoint that the Earth is flat.

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

What a terrible paper this is.  Statements such as "The erroneous idea of saying that electric vehicles are free of greenhouse gas emission needs to be dealt away with" indicate the level of bias.  I haven't met anyone who has made such a claim. 

I think there are a great many members of the general public for whom the claim that "EV's are free of greenhouse gas emissions" would be considered to be the consensus opinion.

This is promoted by Government:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-zero-emission-vehicles
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables

Campaign groups:
https://www.theclimategroup.org/our-work/resources/taking-action-zero-emission-vehicles-united-kingdom

Manufacturer claims:
https://www.electricdrives.tv/post/bmw-show-the-world-their-latest-ix-zero-emission-electric-car

Press:
https://businessmotoring.co.uk/government-announces-zev-strategy/

To be honest, for most of the public, I suspect they aren't that interested - the focus is on what the car costs them and do they like the car.  Whether the car is "zero-emissions" or "zero tailpipe emissions" is a finesse that does not matter.  It must be good because the VED rate is £nil and there was a discount from the Government to buy the car (is that still available?).  Thinking a step away that "zero emissions" depends on the way the electricity is generated is a complexity many people simply won't think about.  Consideration of embedded energy / emissions in the build of the car and even embedded impact of the solar panels that actually allow a car to operate with zero emissions is really outside what the vast majority of people will think about when making their choice of car.

So, considering all the above, I think the claim that "EV's are free of greenhouse gas emissions" is so widespread and common place as to be prevailing viewpoint in the current time.

There are occasionally comments that challenge the norm:
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/opinion/354671/electric-cars-have-zero-emissions-we-must-consider-how-we-generate-electricity-them

There may even be hope.  It was once the prevailing viewpoint that the Earth is flat.

When I posted on here a couple of months back

“It is not inadvertent or an isolated day that EVs contribute to CO2 emissions, they do that every single time we charge them”

it was not well received.

My car is fine though as it says “zero emissions” on the side. 

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

JKenH said:

ABrass said:

JKenH said:

Taking into account greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles for transportation de-carbonization

Scientific paper which reaches an interesting conclusion. You will need to read the paper to fully understand why.

The preferential plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) treatments in existing light-duty vehicle (LDV) fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations were intended to help jump-start PEV production and market deployment. They have certainly served that purpose, but at the price of increased GHG emissions. We estimate that the preferential treatments in terms of the PEV dilution and leakage effects result in a GHG emissions increase of 1094 million tonnes of CO2eq associated with LDVs sold in 2012–2025 in China, the U.S., and the EU.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002238

Study funded by Saudi Arabia's national oil company says that EVs are bad. What a shocker.

This study was supported by the Aramco Services Company and the U.S. Department of Energy

It's a deliberately very narrow study, it's also based on the IEAs predictions of energy breakdown which are famously bad.

Now here’s an article you can really get your teeth into.

A case for the internal combustion engine powered vehicle

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339629819_ScienceDirect_A_case_for_the_internal_combustion_engine_powered_vehicle

What a terrible paper this is.  Statements such as "The erroneous idea of saying that electric vehicles are free of greenhouse gas emission needs to be dealt away with" indicate the level of bias.  I haven't met anyone who has made such a claim. 

I should remind you that you gave “thanks” to the attached post disputing my suggestion that

 “It is not inadvertent or an isolated day that EVs contribute to CO2 emissions, they do that every single time we charge them.”

As @Grumpy_chap says, this misconception might be more widespread than you realise.