Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones

colm_mcm · 20-04-2019 4:35pm

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 · 20-04-2019 4:37pm

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 · 20-04-2019 4:41pm

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 · 20-04-2019 4:48pm

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/

20-04-2019 4:57pm

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 · 20-04-2019 5:01pm

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 · 20-04-2019 5:11pm

[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 · 20-04-2019 5:12pm

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 · 22-04-2019 3:40am

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 · 22-04-2019 9:59am

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 · 22-04-2019 5:46pm

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 · 22-04-2019 6:01pm

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.

22-04-2019 6:41pm

As if CO2 was the actual problem.

Smug is the real culprit here

samih · 23-04-2019 12:53pm

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 · 27-04-2019 1:59pm

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 · 27-04-2019 4:53pm

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 · 27-04-2019 5:00pm

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 · 27-04-2019 5:09pm

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.

Electric vehicles emit more CO2 than diesel ones

Comments