Interesting look at new study comparing like-for-like eV/ICE cars and their CO2 emissions from manufacture and fuel/electricity usage.
Report is available here
Tesla referral link - get free credits for you and I... https://ts.la/karl28327
Would you like some other paid for nonsense with that, or are you expecting a serious thread?
EVs generally get over 100MPGe, so even if powered directly from a generator it's still more efficient than any petrol car. Not like diesel or petrol flows out of the ground either.
..and as the years progress, more and more of us will be charging at home from self generated electricity, also remember majority of EV home charging should be at night when renewables are the predominant fuel source.
Our Leaf was fully PV powered from March until we sold it mid Summer, I didn't keep stats on it. My Model S got 2,791kms last year on PV power.
I don't have a huge PV system
They are green and clean at source.
Tailpipe emissions is a big deal nowadays and if you can rid the cities of tail pipe emissions alone that would be a big step forward for pedestrians and dare i say it, those damn cyclists!
We can argue about where the electricity gets generated from, and yes we have coal fired stations here but we also generated 50% of our needs using renewable technology in 2020 (EirGrid data).
The thing with EVs, is that they have the potential to be very green with Solar PV, wind generation, hydro generation etc, key word is potential.
No ICE can achieve that.
Buying a Tesla? -> Get Free Store Credits using my Referral Link - https://www.tesla.com/en_ie/referral/keith69729
It's a misleading title. The report says that the extra CO2 emissions from the production of the XC40 recharge are balanced out by the extra CO2 emissions from the use of the XC40 ICE at 77,600 km (using the EU28 electrical fuel mix). Once a car has travelled above this, then it's lifetime emissions are lower then the XC40 ICE. This is on the assumption that at end of vehicle life, the battery is recycled and not used for a secondary purpose. If the battery is re-used and only considered half used at the time it is finished in the car, then the break even point is at 49,600 km.
It never gets old. It is a "new" study published last year.
Absolutely misleading! What do you expect? Using a legitimate study to push one's agenda is the oldest trick in the books. What you describe is depicted by the figure
We are better than EU-28 mix so we are between the pale blue and slightly darker shade of blue. Even on the global mix EVs are better before the half lifetime. However, what the study is not mentioning is the "unknown" CO2 needed to have 1l of petrol at the pump. Looking only at CO2 was the big mistake that led us to embrace diesel. Are we never learning?
"Regarding the tail-pipe emissions from the ICE vehicles, only carbon dioxide emissions are included whereas methane and nitrous oxide emissions (CH4 and N2O) are excluded."
And here is at 200,000 km. Notice the large difference in use phase for ICE to Li-Ion production. This difference is larger in reality due to so many factors. I sold my ICE car at 350k km and it is still on the road. But the answer is and always be No it is not dirtier than petrol and has the potential to be cleaner every single day whereas petrol cars are getting dirtier as they get older.
Q: What was the goal of the tobacco industry's $45 million program started in 1979 for funding scientific research?
From 1979 to 1985, Fred Seitz directed a program for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company that distributed $45 million to scientists around the country for biomedical research that could generate evidence and cultivate experts to be used in court to defend the “product.”
No doubt in a couple of decades the Big Oil and legacy automaker funded "studies" will come to light