Volvo: EVs Increase CO2
Volvo's EV Lifecycle Analysis challenges the narrative
Above: Volvos assume the position.
Introduction: CO2 Payback is a Bitch
I am a retired chemist who has been watching from the sidelines with dismay as the standards about what is acceptable and unacceptable in scientific research has spiraled downward.
There has always been some corruption in science because humans, money and fame are involved, but in academia, securing research funding and grants from government and industry is how careers are made or lost.
With regards to science corruption, I published a piece entitled : Redux - China’s Fake Science Industry: Fraud is a Lifestyle in which I shared some of my personal experiences with industrial espionage when working in the chemical industry:
In more recent times modern scientific practice and thought has been impacted by an entirely new agenda - man-made climate change, and promoting alarm around it. In this case, a flood of tax payer dollars (billions) has been released for research projects focusing on EVs, solar, wind, and CO2 capture by the last Administration.
This has done damage to science worldwide, as researchers climb over themselves to secure a piece of the pie, and publish research that further promotes the man-made climate change agenda.
I would suggest that one can be sure that the climate changes, as it has for millennia.
Above: Old School vs. Cash and Fame Hungry
In contrast to academia, industrial research takes into consideration some of the following more practical go-no-go questions:
Is a technology commercially viable?
Can the viable technology or products developed from it make money (profits) for the company?
Companies want to be profitable and survive economically, but Economic Darwinism comes to play often and companies go bust for a variety of reasons.
Two recent examples of Darwinian Economics come to mind: VW and Toyota. VW went all in with EVs after the Dieselgate debacle and is thus teetering toward bankruptcy per article below:
In contrast, Toyota stayed with a pure logical engineering approach and increased efficiencies and hybrid adoption. Toyota is profitable and a leading car manufacturer per below:
Notably, there is one other car manufacturer that recognized early on that BEVs/EVs would make almost no dent in CO2 emissions, and actually may increase them: Volvo.
In a long buried and mostly ignored lifecycle analysis, Volvo showed that only under the ideal circumstances could an EV/BEV “break-even” with it’s cradle to grave CO2 emissions vs. an ICE vehicle, that is: only after a so-called “break-even” mileage - are CO2 emissions less than an ICE vehicle.
Volvo’s findings are the subject of the review below, with a comparison to a USA taxpayer funded and wildly optimistic computer model developed and promoted by Argonne National Labs.
Do EVs Ultimately Lower CO2 ?
In the following I compare and contrast the EV/BEV CO2 lifecycle results from Argonne and Volvo. It is noted that Volvo’s study uses Volvo cars actually in production.
The two simple questions to start:
1) What is the “carbon footprint” of a EV/BEV vs. an ICE car from cradle to grave?
2) How far does one have to drive a EV/BEV to “break-even”, so that greenhouse gas emissions for a BEV are equivalent to an ICE car and then lessen afterwards?
Argonne Computer Modeling of the EV CO2 Lifecycle
Follow the taxpayer grant money: Argonne has created a computer modeling program called GREET to predict CO2 emissions over the lifetime of an EV. GREET uses assumptions and data to show that BEVs greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will break-even with ICE cars at relatively low mileages (as low as 15,000 miles).
This is despite the enormous environmental costs and fossil fuel consumption to produce EV batteries. Most batteries are produced in China from burning coal to run the factories.
Publish or perish: GREET publishes a great number of papers and publications using your tax dollars. This is used as a metric for success, and keeps researchers fat on grant money and secures careers.
Above: schematic of GREET modeling.
Above: Argonne Pablum for insomnia sufferers - your tax dollars at work.
The Volvo Real Car Lifecycle Study: BEV vs. Hybrid vs ICE
Above: downloadable pdf of the full Volvo report
Above: simple schematic from Volvo outlines the study.
Volvo Study: EVs Increase CO2 Unless You Drive the Heck out of them and Charge them with Electricity from Windmills and Hydro
The Volvo study is a mostly apples to apples comparison, in that Volvo compares different modes of locomotion (BEV, hybrid, gas) within a single Volvo car platform, everything else equal.
The car platform shares a common assembly line and suppliers (except for the electric motors and supporting systems). Each phase of the lifecycle is analyzed, and Volvo compares GHGs (CO2) emissions from each mode of locomotion with fueling or charging, as well as the GHGs emitted when a car is driven (use phase).
In the study, to charge the cars, Volvo compares best-case or 100 % renewable wind power to more realistic real world global and EU 28 mixes of energy that comprise of a mix of fossil, nuclear, hydro and some wind and solar.
Above: the battery is big CO2 emissions issue in the production phase.
As mentioned prior, Volvo compared the same platform or car (body, chassis, design, etc.) with different power modes, and concluded that GHG emissions from making EVs are 70% higher than petrol models due to battery manufacturing, and suggests that it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become “greener”, depending on how much you drive.
This is due to large amount of fossil fuels that are combusted to create batteries, notwithstanding water use, mining operations, remediation, and general environmental destruction.
To quote:
“When also including the Li-ion battery modules and Volvo Cars manufacturing, the GHG emissions are nearly 70 per cent higher for the C40 Recharge compared with XC40 ICE.”
Volvo also showed that the best-case break-even point for greenhouse gases while using the car (use phase) is at least double that of the optimistic Argonne GREET computer model:
Best-case Argonne GREET Synthetic Model: 15,000 miles
Best-case Volvo Real World: 30,450 miles
To quote, and shown below in the break-even diagram:
“For all three electricity mixes in the LCA, the breakeven occurs at 49,000, 77,000 and 110,000km respectively, all within the assumed life cycle of the vehicle (200,000km).”
Above: Volvo diagram and more realistic best-case CO2 breakeven.
Conclusions
A BEV must be charged from a completely “renewable” energy source such as wind, hydro, and/or solar to reach the Volvo best-case GHG breakeven of 30,000 miles vs the 15,000 miles per Argonne GREET computer model.
For BEV break-even using the more realistic global mix and EU-28 mix of electricity (coal, gas, nuclear, sprinkling of “renewables”) you will need to drive 68,350 and 47,845 miles respectively !
Where the Rubber Meets the Road
Replacing all of the world’s cars with EVs will not lower CO2 in any substantive way: the slice of the car GHG pie is miniscule compared to the other emitters, while the environmental and social costs of EV battery production are almost incalculable.
Why? Because automobiles and light trucks contribute only a small fraction of GHGs ( ca. 7 %) to the global total per EPA, BP, IEA and other data consolidator studies.
Above: 11.9% of GHG gases (CO2 mostly) arise from all forms of road transport which includes cars, trucks, lorries, motorcycles and buses. However, only 7.2 % of emissions come from cars motorcycle, and buses.
Simple Math from Above
Per above, 11.9% of global GHG gases (CO2 mostly) arise from road transport. This includes emissions from burning of petrol and diesel from all forms of road transport which includes cars, trucks, lorries, motorcycles and buses.
Importantly, 60 % of road transport emissions come from passenger travel (cars, motorcycles and buses); and the remaining 40 % is from road freight (lorries and trucks).
0.60 * 12 x 100 = 7.2 % GHGs from passenger travel (cars, motorcycles and buses)
Alas, those steeped in the religion of climate change will never read or accept this outcome as it would require them to abandon long-held beliefs
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that all this push for EVs, “renewable” energy, and other initiatives to move everyone away from fossil fuels and literal “clean energy”, etc, is for population control.
Anyone who has been paying attention for a decade or more knows our electrical grid is in dire need of massive upgrades from coast to coast. Just look at California for the example…the rolling brown outs and issues with keeping things powered is only getting worse with the mandates to eliminate all gas powered appliances and water heaters. Now, with the addition of EVs how much worse will it become?
The Cabal is about democide/genocide and complete population control. They do not care if anyone can drive their EVs or heat/cool their homes, etc. Useless eaters are subjects/slaves not free folks and that’s the reason for the 15 minute cities/internment camps. What we are looking at is the unfolding of a dystopian reality so diabolical that even Hollywood would fail to write so well!