Even more damning: EV cars are driven a lot less than ICE cars, at least in the US. EV cars are driven only 7,165 miles (11,265 km) per year compared to 11,642 miles (17,702 km) for ICE cars. To go back to your example, it would take nearly 11 years (!) before the total emissions of the Golf EV start to compare favorably to the Golf Diesel. How anyone can pretend EVs are "green" is beyond me.
The worst is that during those 11 years ICE cars will also get more efficient. Just look at what Toyota is doing with hybrids. So it's possible there won't be any actual emission reduction over the effective lifetime of an EV.
It is possible that at some point EVs will be fairly cheap (eg using iron batteries), batteries won’t catch fire, etc. But that’s not the case nowadays. Given these shortcomings and their limited environmental benefits, politicians should stop pushing EVs down people’s throats.
Great article. I just found your column and I have been enjoying your articles.
I don’t think Greens understand how incompatible solar, wind and coal are with electric vehicles. Coal because of the carbon emissions from both battery production and fueling, and solar/wind because they drive up the cost of electricity and intermittency.
I think a much better plan is to replace coal with a blend of natural gas, nuclear and hydro. The exact blend will vary based on geography and local cost structure. In the USA, natural gas is a no brainer because of its low cost.
Only after that has been accomplished should we promote electric vehicles. The reality is that there is no reason to rush to purchase technologies before they are cost-effective. We do not need to get to Netzero by 2050, because there is no climate emergency. Removing coal from the grid comes first and solar and wind cannot so that.
Love that "zero emission" ID 3. The fire destroyed another vehicle and required the deployment of two very large (ahem) diesel powered fire trucks. All whilst spewing thick black toxic smoke into the air. You can't make this stuff up.
Even in Norway's 92%-hydro, almost carbon-free, electric economy, an EV that lasts 15 years has to be driven for 45 years to overcome the CO2 emitted in its production.
End-to-end energy-return on investment for ICE is 45:1 (41 miles/kWh), 13:1 (13 miles/kWh) for EV.
How can that be, when an ICE is 40% efficient and an EV is 90%?
Do a complete system analysis, not just an analysis of the ultimate driving experience.
If you compare the emissions of a pure EV to a hybrid with a much smaller battery, the hybrid wins hands-down. Even better than Toyota's parallel hybrid, from the emissions and economy perspective, would be a serial hybrid such as the discontinued Chevy Volt. A parallel hybrid has a torque combiner, and the gas (or diesel) engine runs pretty much all the time, at varying speeds and therefore varying efficiencies. In a serial hybrid, the only traction is electric, and the gas (or diesel) motor either doesn't run at all, or runs at its optimal design speed and power output. On emissions and efficiency, a serial hybrid would always be better than a parallel hybrid. Why did Chevrolet discontinue the Volt? Political pressure? Or was it just because it was somewhat under-powered, got a bad rap for that, and sales lagged?
Thanks the subscription and your excellent comments re. Norwegian Illusion. A great article link as well.
Makes total sense that an ICE vehicle directly burning a high energy density fuel is ultimately more efficient than an EV using electrons indirectly "produced" by fuels or other sources upstream with the many attendant losses along the way.
The entire hoax is built on the false assumption that banning ICE vehicles globally will reduce global warming by CO2 elimination. The amount of emitted CO2 from ICE vehicles is fractional and nonconsequential, but coal fired battery production is a huge emitter.
Note that energy density of 1 kg of gasoline is 100 x greater than 1 kg of Li battery.
Great post TC and thank you for the shoutout!
Even more damning: EV cars are driven a lot less than ICE cars, at least in the US. EV cars are driven only 7,165 miles (11,265 km) per year compared to 11,642 miles (17,702 km) for ICE cars. To go back to your example, it would take nearly 11 years (!) before the total emissions of the Golf EV start to compare favorably to the Golf Diesel. How anyone can pretend EVs are "green" is beyond me.
The worst is that during those 11 years ICE cars will also get more efficient. Just look at what Toyota is doing with hybrids. So it's possible there won't be any actual emission reduction over the effective lifetime of an EV.
It is possible that at some point EVs will be fairly cheap (eg using iron batteries), batteries won’t catch fire, etc. But that’s not the case nowadays. Given these shortcomings and their limited environmental benefits, politicians should stop pushing EVs down people’s throats.
Source: https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/new-study-finds-electric-vehicles-are-driven-less-gas-cars
Great find Tien!
Another nail in the EV coffin ⚰️.
Great article. I just found your column and I have been enjoying your articles.
I don’t think Greens understand how incompatible solar, wind and coal are with electric vehicles. Coal because of the carbon emissions from both battery production and fueling, and solar/wind because they drive up the cost of electricity and intermittency.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-solar-wind-undermines-evs
I think a much better plan is to replace coal with a blend of natural gas, nuclear and hydro. The exact blend will vary based on geography and local cost structure. In the USA, natural gas is a no brainer because of its low cost.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-simple-and-cost-effective-plan
Only after that has been accomplished should we promote electric vehicles. The reality is that there is no reason to rush to purchase technologies before they are cost-effective. We do not need to get to Netzero by 2050, because there is no climate emergency. Removing coal from the grid comes first and solar and wind cannot so that.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/more-evidence-that-solar-wind-cannot
Superb. I now have plenty of succinct and logical reading ahead of me. Thank you!
In my humble opinion, the entirety of our existence comprises inefficient heat generation, both biologically, and with our quaint technologies.
In the meantime, pedal to the metal with nuclear until we really can figure it out.
Love that "zero emission" ID 3. The fire destroyed another vehicle and required the deployment of two very large (ahem) diesel powered fire trucks. All whilst spewing thick black toxic smoke into the air. You can't make this stuff up.
Crazy, right?
And smoke chock full of carcinogens
VW cheated so your diesel would run better and more efficiently. For that it was nationalized (globalized?) and run into the ground.
Ain't Green Grand...
Wonderful work, TC!
Even in Norway's 92%-hydro, almost carbon-free, electric economy, an EV that lasts 15 years has to be driven for 45 years to overcome the CO2 emitted in its production.
End-to-end energy-return on investment for ICE is 45:1 (41 miles/kWh), 13:1 (13 miles/kWh) for EV.
How can that be, when an ICE is 40% efficient and an EV is 90%?
Do a complete system analysis, not just an analysis of the ultimate driving experience.
Read "The Norwegian Illusion" at https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-norwegian-illusion
If you compare the emissions of a pure EV to a hybrid with a much smaller battery, the hybrid wins hands-down. Even better than Toyota's parallel hybrid, from the emissions and economy perspective, would be a serial hybrid such as the discontinued Chevy Volt. A parallel hybrid has a torque combiner, and the gas (or diesel) engine runs pretty much all the time, at varying speeds and therefore varying efficiencies. In a serial hybrid, the only traction is electric, and the gas (or diesel) motor either doesn't run at all, or runs at its optimal design speed and power output. On emissions and efficiency, a serial hybrid would always be better than a parallel hybrid. Why did Chevrolet discontinue the Volt? Political pressure? Or was it just because it was somewhat under-powered, got a bad rap for that, and sales lagged?
Thanks the subscription and your excellent comments re. Norwegian Illusion. A great article link as well.
Makes total sense that an ICE vehicle directly burning a high energy density fuel is ultimately more efficient than an EV using electrons indirectly "produced" by fuels or other sources upstream with the many attendant losses along the way.
The entire hoax is built on the false assumption that banning ICE vehicles globally will reduce global warming by CO2 elimination. The amount of emitted CO2 from ICE vehicles is fractional and nonconsequential, but coal fired battery production is a huge emitter.
Note that energy density of 1 kg of gasoline is 100 x greater than 1 kg of Li battery.
Agreed Nadia, thank you for stopping by!