Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones

Phileas Frog

An interesting article...

Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones, German study shows

Electric vehicles in Germany account for more CO2 emissions than diesel ones, according to a study by German scientists.
When CO2 emissions linked to the production of batteries and the German energy mix - in which coal still plays an important role - are taken into consideration, electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts, according to the study, presented on Wednesday at the Ifo Institute in Munich.

http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/15050/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones,-german-study-shows

Grumpypants

So they factored in the impact of getting the battery made and the electricity made, and then compared it to just driving a diesel car. Ignoring the impact of getting that diesel out if the ground, refined, shipped in huge polluting tankers, shipped in huge polluting trucks etc.

gizmo555

Makes a few other questionable assumptions too, such as pretty low usage of the batteries at 150,000km over ten years, that the batteries will be scrapped after ten years, and that Germany will not reduce the CO2 emissions caused by electricity generation in the next ten years.

HopsAndJumps

Grumpypants wrote: »

So they factored in the impact of getting the battery made and the electricity made, and then compared it to just driving a diesel car. Ignoring the impact of getting that diesel out if the ground, refined, shipped in huge polluting tankers, shipped in huge polluting trucks etc.

Its a very complicated question, id like to see the study to see all the factors that are considered. Id be surprised if those issues were not factored in but you never know depending on who is financing the study. Germany is home to pretty much most of the cars we drive here.

I think Ireland's electricity generation of up to about 49% efficiency now. That's quite a bit more efficient than petrol or diesel which between 20-40%

ted1

They are ignoring the NOX and SOX which are reduced at a power plant as oppose from cars.

They also ignore that cars are emitting in cities at ground level and hence are doing more damage to cities and populations.

I’d also question the energy mix they used.



And most the inportantly the article does not reference the article. It doesn’t say who produced it it commissioned it

I always like to refer to the studies themselves to check validatity, without the above it’s just fiction

slave1

ted1 wrote: »

They also ignore that cars are emitting in cities at ground level and hence are doing more damage to cities and populations.

* This

punisher5112

Absolutely nuts.

If I'm in the city say in traffic the diesel cars around me are more harmful as I'm taking in a breath of all the particle matter.

Nox is important also as brought up in previous posts.

I do wonder is the oil industry or car manufacturers themselves behind most of this.

Government most likely not as they can just increase tax on something else if fuel use drops such as higher motor tax or more tax on electricity....

KAGY

ted1 wrote: »

They are ignoring the NOX and SOX which are reduced at a power plant as oppose from cars.

They also ignore that cars are emitting in cities at ground level and hence are doing more damage to cities and populations.

I’d also question the energy mix they used.



And most the inportantly the article does not reference the article. It doesn’t say who produced it it commissioned it

I always like to refer to the studies themselves to check validatity, without the above it’s just fiction

Paper is here http://www.hanswernersinn.de/de/kohle-wind-diesel-motoren-co2-bilanz-sd-17042019 in German

I'd hazard a guess they've a thing for natural gas, I don't read German but some abstracts mention methane powered cars for the short term and hydrogen from methane in the long term.

One point is that Germany burns a lot of lignite / brown coal which is like a cross between peat and coal.

ted1

KAGY wrote: »

Paper is here http://www.hanswernersinn.de/de/kohle-wind-diesel-motoren-co2-bilanz-sd-17042019 in German

I'd hazard a guess they've a thing for natural gas, I don't read German but some abstracts mention methane powered cars for the short term and hydrogen from methane in the long term.

One point is that Germany burns a lot of lignite / brown coal which is like a cross between peat and coal.

Methane is 17 times more harmful than CO2

Fiery mutant

It's not like the Germans have a good track record either when it comes to emissions.

The only thing the Germans care about, is themselves.

Dont be at yourself

The latest issue of Top Gear magazine is dedicated to electrics, and there's a series of articles debunking myths such as this one. It cites research from ICTT (who uncovered Dieselgate), that reckons lifetime CO2 emissions, even including manufacturing and mining, come in at half that of an ICE.

tedpan

Phileas Frog wrote:

Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones, German study shows

They've been talking about the costs and how ungreen the battery manufacturing/transportation process is for years now.

#oldnews

BloodBath

Phileas Frog wrote: »

An interesting article...

Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones, German study shows

Electric vehicles in Germany account for more CO2 emissions than diesel ones, according to a study by German scientists.
When CO2 emissions linked to the production of batteries and the German energy mix - in which coal still plays an important role - are taken into consideration, electric vehicles emit 11% to 28% more than their diesel counterparts, according to the study, presented on Wednesday at the Ifo Institute in Munich.

http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/15050/electric-vehicles-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones,-german-study-shows

Another dumb article. Total bollocks.

Even if it was true reducing emissions from cities and public areas is far more important. But it's not true even in the worst case scenario of coal power plants.

I'm sick of breathing the emissions from filthy diesel vehicles around me. The sooner we go full electric the better.

These "scientists" should have their reputation, if they ever had one, ruined by this bollocks fluff piece probably paid for by the oil industry. They even suggest using methane engines over diesel. Good god. Methane is far worse than carbon.

How about you tackle your energy production Germany instead of targeting electric vehicles.

Markcheese

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

Its a very complicated question, id like to see the study to see all the factors that are considered. Id be surprised if those issues were not factored in but you never know depending on who is financing the study. Germany is home to pretty much most of the cars we drive here.

I think Ireland's electricity generation of up to about 49% efficiency now. That's quite a bit more efficient than petrol or diesel which between 20-40%

49 % efficency what way?
Thermal efficency or to the plug including transmission losses Ect...

Calahonda52

Markcheese wrote: »

49 % efficency what way?
Thermal efficency or to the plug including transmission losses Ect...

I would say he meant renewable and google autocorrected

unkel

gizmo555 wrote: »

that the batteries will be scrapped after ten years

LOL!

The batteries will still be worth thousands after the car is end of life after say 15 years. They will be re-used as grid attached storage. Lithium batteries have a useful life of several decades.

jimmycrackcorm

punisher5112 wrote: »

Absolutely nuts.

If I'm in the city say in traffic the diesel cars around me are more harmful as I'm taking in a breath of all the particle matter.

Nox is important also as brought up in previous posts.

I do wonder is the oil industry or car manufacturers themselves behind most of this.

Government most likely not as they can just increase tax on something else if fuel use drops such as higher motor tax or more tax on electricity....

I remember seeing a programme on RTE where they showed a trinity study on pollutants from diesel by putting pollution filters in Nassau Street and in the suburbs.
Frightening to actually see what we are breathing surrounded by traffic. That's the real problem when it comes to this discussion about the overall emissions

ted1

unkel wrote: »

LOL!

The batteries will still be worth thousands after the car is end of life after say 15 years. They will be re-used as grid attached storage. Lithium batteries have a useful life of several decades.

Plans to recycle
https://www.upsbatterycenter.com/blog/unique-battery-recycling-system-tesla/

iamtony

Just want to point out the co2 problem is more to do with global warming and us destroying the planet rather than inhaling diesel emissions at ground level. Which is also an issue but the co2 thing is bigger than us humans who we could do with killing off a few billion in the first place. Watch the new one planet thing on Netflix now that's an eye opener.

ted1

iamtony wrote: »

Just want to point out the co2 problem is more to do with global warming and us destroying the planet rather than inhaling diesel emissions at ground level. Which is also an issue but the co2 thing is bigger than us humans who we could do with killing off a few billion in the first place. Watch the new one planet thing on Netflix now that's an eye opener.

300,000 deaths annually due to the burning of fossil fuels.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/11/07/pollution-kills-more-people-than-anything-else/amp/

BloodBath

iamtony wrote: »

Just want to point out the co2 problem is more to do with global warming and us destroying the planet rather than inhaling diesel emissions at ground level. Which is also an issue but the co2 thing is bigger than us humans who we could do with killing off a few billion in the first place. Watch the new one planet thing on Netflix now that's an eye opener.

The beef and dairy industry are just as bad as the fossil fuel industry in this department and Ireland is a big contributor.

We're still stuck using a large % of land for this crap since the Brits turned Ireland into a farm for themselves.

ted1

BloodBath wrote: »

The beef and dairy industry are just as bad as the fossil fuel industry in this department and Ireland is a big contributor.

We're still stuck using a large % of land for this crap since the Brits turned Ireland into a farm for themselves.

Well after they chopped down our oak foreststo build their boats we did have a lot of spare land.

...Ghost...

BloodBath wrote: »

The beef and dairy industry are just as bad as the fossil fuel industry in this department and Ireland is a big contributor.

We're still stuck using a large % of land for this crap since the Brits turned Ireland into a farm for themselves.

Our Beef and Dairy industry feed a whole lot more than just Ireland. This is why the place of consumption should be taken into account.

Dakota Dan

ted1 wrote: »

Methane is 17 times more harmful than CO2

But it lasts 20 times less in the atmosphere.

Dakota Dan

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

The latest issue of Top Gear magazine is dedicated to electrics, and there's a series of articles debunking myths such as this one. It cites research from ICTT (who uncovered Dieselgate), that reckons lifetime CO2 emissions, even including manufacturing and mining, come in at half that of an ICE.

Top gear? They’d Surely know better.

Dakota Dan

iamtony wrote: »

Just want to point out the co2 problem is more to do with global warming and us destroying the planet rather than inhaling diesel emissions at ground level. Which is also an issue but the co2 thing is bigger than us humans who we could do with killing off a few billion in the first place. Watch the new one planet thing on Netflix now that's an eye opener.

An eye opener? It was torn to shreds by wildlife experts about all the misinformation shortly after coming out. Also in case you didn’t know calving glaciers is a natural event and if it didn’t happen we’d be in more serious trouble.

BloodBath

...Ghost... wrote: »

Our Beef and Dairy industry feed a whole lot more than just Ireland. This is why the place of consumption should be taken into account.

It doesn't change the fact that the beef/dairy industry is 1 of the most damaging things on the planet. I love dairy and beef myself but we're over reliant on it.

If there's a carbon tax there needs to be a beef and dairy tax as well. There are plenty of viable alternatives that are far less damaging.

colm_mcm

ted1 wrote: »

Methane is 17 times more harmful than CO2

Water can be dangerous.

Dakota Dan

colm_mcm wrote: »

Water can be dangerous.

True, water vapour is the main greenhouse gas but they can’t tax clouds.

Dakota Dan

BloodBath wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that the beef/dairy industry is 1 of the most damaging things on the planet. I love dairy and beef myself but we're over reliant on it.

If there's a carbon tax there needs to be a beef and dairy tax as well. There are plenty of viable alternatives that are far less damaging.

Spoken like a true vegan.

ted1

colm_mcm wrote: »

Water can be dangerous.

Methane is dangerous, what’s your point ? Are you trying to down play how bad it is for the environment?

colm_mcm

ted1 wrote: »

Methane is dangerous, what’s your point ? Are you trying to down play how bad it is for the environment?

Not at all, but context is needed when saying something is dangerous or comparing one figure to another.

H.E. Pennypacker

Anyone like to put a figure on the electricity generation-related CO2 figures per km for a typical EV in Ireland?

SEAI reckon 436.6g CO2/kWh for electricity (https://www.seai.ie/resources/seai-statistics/conversion-factors/)

ted1

colm_mcm wrote: »

Not at all, but context is needed when saying something is dangerous or comparing one figure to another.

The context was that they prefer natural gas which is essentials made up of mainly methane.

gozunda

BloodBath wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that the beef/dairy industry is 1 of the most damaging things on the planet. I love dairy and beef myself but we're over reliant on it.

If there's a carbon tax there needs to be a beef and dairy tax as well. There are plenty of viable alternatives that are far less damaging.

Not only is that complete and utter biblox, it's also evident that the same rubbish is being continuously pushed by amongst others - the Plant Food industry including the recent EAT-Lancet 'Planetary Health Report' and some minority anti-animal farming interests for "viable alternatives" (sic)

It remains that agriculture lies well bejind fossil fuel usage with regard to the production of greenhouse gases.

The calculations regarding water use etc based on that same piece of propaganda are mainly derived from calculations of the US beef / dairy Feed Lot system and are as about as relevant to the rest of the world and reality as Disneyland doing real news.

Of interest a lot of this hype is also derived from the now debunked World Watch report Written by Goodland & Anhang (Livestock and Climate Change, 2009) that came up with the rubbish figure that animal agriculture was supposedly responsible for 51percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions and which has now been shown to be rubbish by the experts. Does that stop the same rubbish being promoted? Does it feck

Climate data reveals that the percentage of carbon emitted by all forms of agriculture plus forestry and all other land use sectors combined is estimated at 24%* of total emissions gobally .

It also shows that energy use (25%) , industry (21%) and transportation (14%) whose emissions are primarily related to the use of fossil fuels are each greater than the emissions for all types of agriculture and when combined make up some 60% of all carbon emissions.

http://www.cleantech.guide/p/cc4i/1929/

All this anthropocentric warming is a load of bollix anyway. The climate goes through natural variations over decades, hundreds and thousands of years.

We didn't melt the ice after the last ice age.

All this man made climate change is utter nonsense designed to extract more money out of the tax payer. If people are so concerned about Co2 then plant hedges and trees instead of building walls and concreting the yard.

Actual pollution is another matter entirely. Co2 is a harmless gas necessary for life on earth and plants and trees thrive on it.

fricatus

H.E. Pennypacker wrote: »

Anyone like to put a figure on the electricity generation-related CO2 figures per km for a typical EV in Ireland?

SEAI reckon 436.6g CO2/kWh for electricity (https://www.seai.ie/resources/seai-statistics/conversion-factors/)

I get 16 kWh per 100 km in a Hyundai Ioniq, so that gives about 69 g CO2 per km.

Sounds plausible, but if you want to compare with the published figures for ICE cars, just remember that the petrol and diesel they use needs a huge amount of energy to be refined before it’s burned in the engine. There are plenty of arguments out there about how much, but it’s a significant amount in any event.

ted1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

All this anthropocentric warming is a load of bollix anyway. The climate goes through natural variations over decades, hundreds and thousands of years.

We didn't melt the ice after the last ice age.

All this man made climate change is utter nonsense designed to extract more money out of the tax payer. If people are so concerned about Co2 then plant hedges and trees instead of building walls and concreting the yard.

Actual pollution is another matter entirely. Co2 is a harmless gas necessary for life on earth and plants and trees thrive on it.

You truly add a mad lad. Increased levels of CO2 are increasing the earths temperature and causing global warming.
CO2 are harmless at their natural levels. However at the man made levels they are very dangerous to the planets abiility to sustain life. The increases in temperature since the industrial revolution is not natural or sustainable

H.E. Pennypacker

fricatus wrote: »

I get 16 kWh per 100 km in a Hyundai Ioniq, so that gives about 69 g CO2 per km.

Sounds plausible, but if you want to compare with the published figures for ICE cars, just remember that the petrol and diesel they use needs a huge amount of energy to be refined before it’s burned in the engine. There are plenty of arguments out there about how much, but it’s a significant amount in any event.

Thanks - nice to get a real world figure. As we all know, the published figures for ICE don't tell the real world figures - for instance, my car is officially rated at 4.4l/100 km or 109g CO2/km whereas my real world emissions are 5.66l/100 km or 150g CO2/km. That's 3 tonnes of CO2 a year, assuming 20,000 km driven. And, as you've mentioned, that's not counting the extraction, refining and transport of the fuel.....

On a slightly positive note, the new WLTP figure for my car is 145g CO2/km so the newer figures are a bit more realistic.

BloodBath

gozunda wrote: »

Not only is that complete and utter biblox, it's also evident that the same rubbish is being continuously pushed by amongst others - the Plant Food industry including the recent EAT-Lancet 'Planetary Health Report' and some minority anti-animal farming interests for "viable alternatives" (sic)

It remains that agriculture lies well bejind fossil fuel usage with regard to the production of greenhouse gases.

The calculations regarding water use etc based on that same piece of propaganda are mainly derived from calculations of the US beef / dairy Feed Lot system and are as about as relevant to the rest of the world and reality as Disneyland doing real news.

Of interest a lot of this hype is also derived from the now debunked World Watch report Written by Goodland & Anhang (Livestock and Climate Change, 2009) that came up with the rubbish figure that animal agriculture was supposedly responsible for 51percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions and which has now been shown to be rubbish by the experts. Does that stop the same rubbish being promoted? Does it feck

Climate data reveals that the percentage of carbon emitted by all forms of agriculture plus forestry and all other land use sectors combined is estimated at 24%* of total emissions gobally .

It also shows that energy use (25%) , industry (21%) and transportation (14%) whose emissions are primarily related to the use of fossil fuels are each greater than the emissions for all types of agriculture and when combined make up some 60% of all carbon emissions.

http://www.cleantech.guide/p/cc4i/1929/

The subject is incredibly complex and hard to calculate. The majority of these scientific studies on both sides are extremely flawed and do not take all factors into account.

I'm not only talking about carbon emissions here. Methane and nitrous oxide are part of the equation. Land use and deforestation are major factors as well. Cattle are 1 of the the least efficient uses of land for food. Less forests means less natural carbon filtering.

More cattle means more Methane and Nitrous Oxide which are often completely ignored in these studies like the one you linked despite being more harmful than CO2.

Zenith74

Deleted User wrote: »

All this anthropocentric warming is a load of bollix anyway. The climate goes through natural variations over decades, hundreds and thousands of years.

We didn't melt the ice after the last ice age.

All this man made climate change is utter nonsense designed to extract more money out of the tax payer. If people are so concerned about Co2 then plant hedges and trees instead of building walls and concreting the yard.

Actual pollution is another matter entirely. Co2 is a harmless gas necessary for life on earth and plants and trees thrive on it.

Ah come on Mad_Lad, as an EV proponent I'd expect a much better appreciation of science and technology.

It is agreed by the VAST majority of the scientific community that human activity is causing climate change at a rate much quicker than anything previous. These people are not politicians and do not benefit from taxation, people thinking they know better than scientists do is quite perplexing.

But even if you don't want to believe them, surely you agree we don't want to be living in a world significantly hotter than this one (like after previous ice ages) which will lead unbelievable suffering for most of the world's people? If we don't want that, why would we not take action to try and avoid it if we have the means to do so?

Kramer

Zenith74 wrote: »

surely you agree we don't want to be living in a world significantly hotter than this one

I dunno, I'm partial to a bit of heat & sure if it gets too hot, isn't that what AC is for?
:P

jusmeig

This is actual fake news. Same article doing the rounds for years. Petrol and Diesel grow on Apple trees, and are delivered by fairies.

FUD, sigh.

As if CO2 was the actual problem.

Smug is the real culprit here

CO2 is just one of the problems. But it makes sense financially to avoid it because fines for the excess emissions above the agreed levels are based on tons of CO2 emitted. And the CO2 doesn't appear from thin air. Imported fuels need to be bought and burnt. So it saves money both on buying fuel and paying taxes to reduce the tons of CO2 emitted. So a no brainer really.

K.Flyer

I feel the E.V. vs ICE debate has been generated by those who want to distract attention away from some of the bigger issues and causes of the increases of C.O.2 in the atmosphere / global warming.
As someone said in an earlier post "...grow trees and hedges", although maybe a slightly tongue in cheek comment, the bigger issue is Deforestation on the global scale.
Trying to sell and convert people to EVs to save the planet is like taking a pain killer for a rotten tooth, sure in the short term it may help, but no amount of EV conversion will make up for the scale of deforestation and especially where it is for cattle breeding.
Yes, I get the argument for ground level nox emissions, but the bigger picture seems to have been very carefully sidestepped.

Deforestation is the second leading cause of global warming and produces about 24% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Scientist say that deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of all the cars and trucks on the world’s roads.

Zenith74

K.Flyer wrote: »

the bigger issue is Deforestation on the global scale.

NASA wouldn't seem to agree with you there -
"Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases."

But more to the point, I don't think anybody is suggesting that if we just moved to EVs that will solve the climate change issue. All of the causes need to be addressed, you just happen to be in an electric vehicle forum so the discussion here focuses more on one particular area.

macnab

Zenith74 wrote: »

NASA wouldn't seem to agree with you there -
"Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases."

But more to the point, I don't think anybody is suggesting that if we just moved to EVs that will solve the climate change issue. All of the causes need to be addressed, you just happen to be in an electric vehicle forum so the discussion here focuses more on one particular area.

The forests are being burnt after the commercial timber has been removed. My understanding is that the smoke from this activity accounts for 20 to 30% (iirc) of harmful combustion gasses. The reduction in CO2 absorbtion is obviously detrimental to the ecosystem also.

Zenith74

macnab wrote: »

The forests are being burnt after the commercial timber has been removed. My understanding is that the smoke from this activity accounts for 20 to 30% (iirc) of harmful combustion gasses. The reduction in CO2 absorbtion is obviously detrimental to the ecosystem also.

8% according to these chaps https://blog.globalforestwatch.org/climate/by-the-numbers-the-value-of-tropical-forests-in-the-climate-change-equation. But again I don't doubt it's a huge problem, for plenty more reasons than just climate change. I'm just responding to the OP's line of argument implying that EVs are some sort of conspiracy plot to deflect us from the one true cause of climate change, deforestation. There are multiple causes and lots of people; we can work on more than one of them at a time.