Are Electric Cars REALLY That Green? [New 2022 Data] 

Actually scrapping your car and buying and running a brand new EV can be greener.

@@therealjpster riding bicycle is the greenest

@@jianyangkoh6386 of course it is. I don't feel this needs saying.

@@therealjpster Actually, you don't know anything what you're talking about. One person in a developed country can spend 100x more emissions/energy CO2, CO, HCx, NOx, etc, kJ, kCal, kWh in his lifetime than a poor person in a developing country. It's not just emissions from your car, it's your entire lifestyle, your house, your heating/cooling activity in your home, all your modern appliances, your vehicles, your travels, all your purchases including constantly buying new thing is a human activity measured in emission/energy. So if you think you are "green" driving an EV, you're like many millions brainwashed to the modern consumerism. As I said if you really mean being green, move to Amazonas or Pacific islands living off the ground, using minimal modern amenities. Wake the f up.

@@TrumanBurbankFE I didn't say green, I said greener. But I agree anyway.

Volvo is moving towards full electric. It’s foolish to believe they’d be entirely impartial.

@@paulwilliams667 and yet their report was actually quite critical of going full electric, showing that a balance is required as BEVs aren't inherently greener than ICEs; it depends a lot on how long you plan on keeping it, how many miles/km you intend to run, and how green the energy matrix of your country is. If your country generates most of its energy by coal or oil, the time needed for your BEV to become greener is much longer.

@@ikemotosystems1434 That's my point! They ARE biased towards green energy and their report still isn't conclusively EV>ICE. Once you take into account the mining processes, lack of recyclability and energy expenditure to transport raw materials, EV tech is absolutely awful for the environment. There shouldn't even be a debate on this subject. EVs won't be viable until solid state batteries or similarly efficient tech is widely available.

@@paulwilliams667 Ah gotcha! Thought you were referring to the report being biased! Completely agree. I do believe EVs will be the future of mass individual transportation, but only when we can actually solve the issues of making them having a huge impact on the environment. Ironically, Toyota is the one who is experimenting and developing solid state battery tech. The one company Tesla fans love to shit on and predict the doom of, are likely positioning themselves to eclipse Tesla in the fight for the BEV future.

Spot on. Unfortunately we live in a disposable society.

I would also be interested in seeing a comparison with the impacts of getting a new battery in EV's to contrast that with engines in gas cars.

They will never allow that because if wouldn't fit in with their green ( brainwashing)agenda.

@@ShiningSakura A battery refurb, rather than a complete replacement, is usually way cheaper.

Even if you want to do an engine swap by yourself it's very hard to get the car road legal in many parts of Europe, for example, in Sweden it has been completely illegal, but quite recently it became possible but still just something enthusiasts do, and then it's usually with bigger engines..

You can however, always trust politicians to lie.

The same mindset as global warming (which I hope gets here soon because I don’t like being cold). In the late 60s and into the 70s, we were told that the next ice age would come within the next 20 years. I only had ice in my drinks. Let’s Go Brandon.

Yes, the EU forced this directive upon everybody. Diesel drivers have been paying next to nothing for road tax here in the UK, £30/yr, whereas petrol drivers have been paying up to £400/yr - it’s a joke. Yet the diesel cars were pumping nastier stuff into our local atmosphere - diesel was cleaner overall, but only cleaner at source, much dirtier at use (where we live). My grandfather was from Luxembourg 👍😊

@@dannyboywhaa3146 my 1.9 TDI £30 Road tax :D

Don’t believe anything not even the date

Good thing jeff bezos built a 420 foot yacht and drives a private jet every day, goes to fuckin "space" for no reason, but I have to worry about my cars co2 lmao life isnt a tragedy, its a fucking comedy

I saw a reaport that said 60000 miles but muy 1liter Suzuki celerio skods city go use far les Lan a model 3 some thing like 240000 miles before you you equal you brake eaven

not sure that he is

@@davidwillims2004 why? Please explain

@@gingernutpreacher no sign to speak of that he is an evangelist. why do you think he is?

What I don't like is people claiming Volvo had some agenda and that they want to keep their ICE vehicles around. That's not the case. Volvo has very specific plans of phasing out their ICE cars and it is more aggressive and quicker than most so-called legacy companies. No, Volvo did a study to get information out. And people can accept it or not. But there's nothing wrong with others studies being done as well.

@@benjaminsmith2287 I think they're just studying for the sake of studying. it's not for determining their future or anything, just sharing some info yknow

🤣🤣🤣

Get the popcorn 🍿

They delete any opposing comments, ask me how I know!

@@ChromeFlakes go on then

@@ChromeFlakes You mean like 'The Guardian' - 'Facts are disposable and comments not free'?

Well, no. Or at least, maybe not as much as you may think. There is also greening the electricity supply, which as the numbers in the video show can have a very large impact on lifetime emissions. Also, there is the battery production. Most of the energy here (at the factory) is expended in the electrode drying ovens. Using a dry battery electrode process saves an enormous amount here. (Size of plant is reduced by maybe an order of magnitude, capital expenditure on battery plant is IIRC more than halved, costs are reduced significantly - not 50%, but 20%, 30% or maybe more and plant CO2 emissions are slashed). There is efficient battery management and drive trains. Tesla is commonly reckoned (as Jim Farley at Ford has admitted) to get significantly more range from the same sized battery as other manufacturers. Finally, it doesn't matter if you produce a smaller vehicle with smaller batteries if nobody buys it. Part of the solution is persuading high polluters to pollute less and the less you ask them to change their accustomed life style to do so, the more success you will have. The more you try to force people to change their lifestyle, the more opposition you will create and the slower the whole process will be. There is also considerable room for improvement in material extraction, Mines could operate using solely electrical equipment, which would then automatically get cleaner as electricity production produces less carbon dioxide - which is happening more and more for purely economic reasons, as renewables are becoming cheaper than fossil fuel powered generators and batteries are cheaper and more effective than gas peaker plants. In refining, aluminium already uses electrical means (always has). Steel, however, uses a lot of coal in blast furnaces, most of it either to heat the iron ore or to "burn" the oxygen in the ore to produce metallic iron. This could be done with (hopefully green) hydrogen, and is starting to happen.

@@colindavidson7071 Thank you for your thought provoking reply. I especially appreciate your holistic approach. I'm looking forward to what the future holds! :)

@@colindavidson7071 What about the hideous nature of making spent batteries not as bad for the environment as conventional nuke waste? Hydrogen is just a complete joke, it's just way waay too problematic to store and handle on a massive scale, also the whole Green movement is just progressive marxism and Agenda 2030 'Hunger Games' end game, there's 7K volcanoes hiding under the sea spewing Sulfur Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulfide by the shitload yearly, that's the actual greenhouse gas, not inert harmless carbon, a plant food, but everyone's a lemming zombie sheep that loves a hysterical narrative.

man 's CO2 has no significant effect on the weather, it's never been anything but a big lie to get you to surrender your freedom and lower your standard of living.

@@c.a.r.s.carsandrelevantspecs so wholesome

Having your car today would be worse in 10 years than if you bought an EV. This is also true when the battery is replaced, according to another video by Engineering Explained who considers the worst case scenarios for EV's and battery replacement.

@@Jimsimi Buying a new EV is way worse for your average consumers wallet.

If you have an existing car that's running fine, passes emission inspections and is not a completely absurd gas-guzzler, I don't think it's environmentally good to scrap it in favor of a hybrid or EV. Keep that thing running and put off the lifecycle costs of producing a new car for as long as possible. But it's more a question of what to get for your next vehicle when the time eventually comes.

Unfortunately we live in a world where NEW rules and its sooo easy to get loans credit pcp etc to enable stupid people to have everything lastest thing TODAY and in 6 months when they have ragged it about on cheap tyres and crap fuel trade it in for the next punter who can actually afford a decent car... They do it all over again along with the lastest i phone blah blah. Hence why the planet is in such a pickle. This EV fad is just another short term plaster to fix the issues and line the big player's and governments pockets.

By definition existing ICE cars will become more and more expensive to repair. It's the nature of such vehicles to suffer wear and tear in any number of important components. Having owned ICE cars for 20 years and an EV for six years I can attest to the MASSIVE savings in maintaining a car and fuelling it. ICEs just can't compete.

Totally agree. My i3 was much more effecient, interesting and clever but flopped due to high manufacturing costs, put BMW off the efficiency route. Hopefully manufactures will soon wake up and rid us of the horrible SUV trend. Mercedes vision eqxx looks much more like the way to go

As an Ioniq 5 owner I can confirm that is less power efficient then the OG ioniq. But my energy consumption hovers somewhere around 3.2 miles per kWh. And it's winter here so it will increase as temperature will rise.

@@Levdbas Pleased to hear that your consumption figure is better than the one I've heard. Still room for improvement though.

But on the other hand. More people are likely to take notice of and get the new Ioniq because, they actually look pleasant and let's face it, aesthetic does influence interest and consumption.

yes, but thats the same as comparing a 1.2L car with a 3L ICE car. Ionic 5 is luxury in comparison and therefore a lot bigger and heavier.

China just built, the largest coal plant ever. They promised to “start reducing” coal burning, by 2025. At the current rate, it won’t matter.

@@billpetersen298 Maybe its needed for a stable wind turbine and solar cell production :)

@@bingoberra18 It’s not needed, by any measure. Once the pollution is out there, it’s not going away. China had a rural agrarian economy. (Low impact). They could have learned from the mistakes of developed nations. And developed, I a manner, that was slower, but more thoughtful. Especially, including ethnic, and religious diversity. Windmills and solar panels are also not green, or good for the environment. They add another layer, to what was done before. Polluting less, is good, but not after you’ve wrecked the place.

@@billpetersen298 China absolutely needs to be taking more action, but we should not forget countries like Australia or Canada that produce 2.5x as much CO2 per population.

Try not to worry the oil is slightly radio active and the water in it is put back in the ground under pressure and just like in a engine block it cracks the surrounding material thus creating earthquakes and the water can an does seep into your water supply....

If Volvo really cared about the environment maybe they would make efficient cars rather than great big SUVs that require a 100kwh battery to get sufficient range.

@@paulheelis4798 that is a pretty silly remark.

@@Nnomadd really? Can you explain why please?

If they cared they would stop making cars

Greta told them to.

It already is 😂

@@Pedro-0839 And you think the cost of petrol and diesel won't? How about when the huge taxpayer funded subsidies currently offered to the oil industry on an annual basis finally come to an end? Expect your fossil fuelled car to cost 4 or 5 times as much to run when that happens...... driving an EV will always cost less in "fuel" than an ICE car.

Hybrids are almost as bad as regular ICE according to research in Denmark (on actual real life usage). Mainly because most people don't charge them. Their emissions are twice as high as they were suppose to be to get the government tax break for "green" cars, so the tax breaks on hybrids is getting axed. And this is talking plug-in hybrids. Regular hybrids are just a joke.

Such comparisons have been done numerous times for years. Rory had this discussion with Robert Llewellyn 12 years ago and despite Rory lying about the CO2 figures for EVs they still came out way ahead of hybrids. Yes, that's right. Rory decided he would reject the official CO2 figures for EVs and just doubled the figure and EVs still left hybrids behind and ICEs nowhere to be seen. EVs are just cleaner and nothing anyone does or says can make them dirtier no matter how hard they try.

Lithium batteries can actually be recycled, it's just not easy and thus expensive so you don't see much of it. This is absolutely something governments need to invest in significantly since it's obvious corporations will not due to it not being very cost effective for them.

@@Enclave. This is part of my point of how that needs to be factored in to any comparison of an EV being 'greener' than other options.

@@dieselmutt8865 Well of course, I didn't say it wouldn't. In fact I commented earlier on this video this: "I've been saying for years that an EV making sense depends largely on where you live. Where I live? Over 90% of my electricity is "clean" as it's from hydro power instead of burning fossil fuels. An EV makes a LOT of sense for where I live, a hell of a lot of sense. But you head somewhere that gets most of their energy from say coal burning? Becomes a lot more murky." Regarding the recycling of li-ion batteries though, it's a bit ridiculous that governments aren't going hard on the recycling of them, it's a limited resource and it's a resource that we use in so many industries that goes FAR beyond just EVs. Government investment into the recycling of lithium batteries is something that should have been going on for decades now once they started becoming the dominant form of energy storage in the consumer market.

@@Enclave. Governments do not have to go after recycling of batteries... Companies are emerging that take up the recycling of batteries, tons of valuable materials in batteries, and when done properly the recycled materials are more pure then from new mining, so battery manufacturers are happy to buy it from them for a good price. Redwood materials and Umicore are growing battery recycling companies and making good money out of this, no need for subsidies. Tesla and VW are so big they can take up the recycling of batteries by themselves, both Telsa and VW are investing in this. EDIT 21-04-2022: Actually we learned during the Q1 earnings call, that Tesla is ALREADY using *50 tons per day in recycled materials* for production of their cars (not only batteries but a lot of Aluminium scraps too) Panasonic making the 2170 battery cells in the Tesla Gigafactory in Nevada, is also already using recycled battery materials, delivered from Redwood, so it is already happening! (just google Panasonic and redwood recycling, and you will see a bunch of articles about this)

They also need to make the batteries cheaper, as the used buyers will not be able to afford a new one and the car will end up in the junkyard.

Government is trying to tell you not to rape or murder, I hope you're not going in the other direction with those two.

@@ab-js2gw If you need government to tell you not to do those things in the first place then we have a multitude of problems, don't we? My own moral compass tells me not to rape and murder; I don't need government to tell me that ;)

@@GoldenbanjoDJ you missing the point Jimmy 😘

Thats hardly a valid comparison 'like-for-like' then is it? Take the worst cae from 'A' and compare against the best result from 'B' is appealing only to cognitive bias. How about buying a second hand EV and compare against a second hand ICE over 5 years?

No actually see this is a Volvo ad and they can lie to you Tesla is so clean it only takes 6000 miles to FULLY recoup the component, production, transport etc of the whole car. After that every mile is carbon free…

goeingdriver29: Your ilk is why I'd like to see the government make the CO2 taxes on gasoline and diesel about 20 bucks a gallon. If you're going to be the biggest part of the problem as long as legally possible, you might as well pay to help clean up the mess you insist on making.

Every thing in a grocery store is there thanks to oil!

@@rogergeyer9851 did you even watch the video?

@@keithmueller1448 and it all used to be there due to horses and wagons too, so does that mean we should not move on?

it can take as little as 3 months in the UK to break even

I also enjoy listening to Rory Reid as I rate him as a fair and balanced journalist. My Fiat 500e will receive around 60% of its charging from my solar PV system and it has a much smaller battery than a large SUV, so I'm not sure how it would compare with (say) an ICE Fiat 500 hybrid bearing in mind that over half of grid electricity here in Scotland comes from renewables.

@@briangriffiths114 Fair to say (as pointed out in the video) that a lighter EV with appropriate battery size/range is more beneficial - and a 500 vs 500e would be a similar comparison to what Volvo have done. The kicker here would be: A) What are the realistic lifetime emissions for YOUR particular 500e vs if YOU would've been driving a 500? B) Where did the "Italians" source the materials for YOUR 500e, and to what extent did they seek to protect the environment in that particular geographic area in order to protect (and benefit) the locals long-term? Fair?

@@wahaha6961 All very good points. I do not get the current trend for large and very powerful cars (whether ICE or BEV) that can usually do 0-60 in under 6 seconds but I seem to be in the minority. Having never driven a BEV prior to the Fiat 500e, I am impressed with it and intend to keep it for a very long time.

@@briangriffiths114 In 2020 97.4% of electricity consumption was from green sources in Scotland. I think your 50% is all energy consumption, including gas etc… for EV’s in our country we are are doing well from a green electricity generation standpoint.

That's bogus, the expectation of short battery life were entirely speculative and the speculation has proven to be wrong. The drive to get new batteries is because better batteries are invented that give an improvement, not that there is substantial loss.

@@Treblaine Source?

@@conceptobject everything has a life cycle, just its nowhere near as short for car batteries as people assumed.

It depends on the environmental conditions

@@Nobere The warranty period for the batteries is typically 100'000 miles. To offer a warranty like that and not be ruined by claims the typical lifespan must be much much more than 100'000 miles.

There is a local company near me that takes those 10 year old Nissan leafs (still run but have shorter range) and replaces the batteries from newer wrecked cars which ends up giving the older cars further range than when they were new. EVs can be put back on the road too.

Plus you get it all cheaper. But so called "desiders" don't or don't want to understand it. Pepole call this "green transformation" greenwash.

I’m sure exhaust from that 35-years old car is lovely, fresh air. And all fuel that was burned is also green and all flowery.

I owned 740 and 940 Volvos and I know what you mean BUT Teslas are going further , with far less maintenance, than those cars . . Another thing that ICE does not count is the carbon foot print of the Oil Chance, Muffler, Brakes and the thousands of other ICE parts . .

So many wrong conclusions, my friend... :) That volvo already polluted >3 lifecycles of an electric car, and I don't see why a 35y old 740 would be more reliable than a 35y old electric car. All this is coming from a volvo fan who had 7 volvos, so I can hardly be called an EVangelist :)

Ice cars could have become more efficient, it just was never a priority. The industry was trash at innovation. This report really was a worst case scenario. Obviously we will move to greener sources of energy, so the payback period is way faster. Imo, if you want to drive petrol go ahead. I don't care. But you should pay for the additional emissions. Does that mean rich people get to pollute? Yes.... But we will charge enough to offset. I think if you charge enough to offset emissions, it's a net zero, so who cares? I really think the additional fuel cost won't be bad and we will eventually have renewable clean fuel. Besides, I think most petrol cars will be Sunday drivers and people will be happy with ai driving for boring commutes. Ai driving will come faster than people think

The best thing with horses is when they got old and knackered, you could eat it. Just as they do in Spain ;-))...

@@Tential1 I agree, this report is worst case and also only a snapshot of the system right now. Things will only improve, that's the nature of technology. More new cars will begin to be designed from scratch with EV in mind, rather than adaptations of ICE platforms, which will help create efficiencies.

What are you talking about? You've just been told that EV cars are not the best solution at this moment and you've stated that they need to get better and then you end your statement by saying that EV cats are the best solution at the moment. The logic.

@@L.C.Sweeney The video shows that EVs can be better in the right circumstances, over time and mileage. Is the gap massive, no, but will it become better, yes. They are the best evolving solution right now to reduce the reliance on limited fossil fuels. Could other fuel sources be better, quite possible, but things like Hydrogen or e-fuels simply aren't mass market now. Change needs to happen fast and batteries are the closest thing we have to that happening right now.

It would be interesting to see new power storage technologies put into vehicles other than lithium ion. Things like sulfur or graphene based cells, even structural batteries, shouldn't be too far away.

I just made this same comment and then saw yours. Also the way that Cobalt is mined involves low pay child labour. It makes me wonder if BEVs were manufactured ethically, if they would become unfeasibly expensive.

@timemachine_194 until you need to replace all the batteries in the car for about the same price you paid for the car when it was brand new, to get at most sources of lithium you have to strip mine the topsoil away, which even done "ethically" still takes its toll on the earth and no they are not recyclable not at cost anyway, heck in Washington state we have the very LAST glass recycling plant in the US why do you think they shipped off most of that junk to China when China would take it? Because recycling is not cheap and each time you reuse the material you have to put more energy in and get less out due to refuse material (sometimes called slag). It's a pipe dream not a terrible alternative especially if one lives in the cities, but for a country like the USA it won't work because people don't want to have to get lunch waiting for their car to recharge.

Many companies are working on better battery designs, it'll be very surprising if 10 years from now the current lithium batteries aren't replaced by a superior alternative with far better energy density and little to no use of lithium and cobalt. Hell Tesla says that their batteries already use zero cobalt.

Once the cars days are numbered the batteries are toxic yes? What about that issue because toxic waste is worse than CO2 that we all breath out and trees use to survive of I would have thought

This doesn't really make sense. When you sell a car someone else drives it, then some else, etc typically until about 150K miles. To make a car greener by keeping it, you would need to be keeping it for longer than it's normal life.

​@@smc812 that’s exactly what he said, i mean the guy literally said: "fix it, treat it well and keep it for as long as you can". if one person owns a car then it completely changes their mentality versus the car changing hand multiple time. A long-term owner will take better care of the car both in terms of service/repair and have more mechanical sympathy for the car, as he understands that hurting the car now will hurt his pockets in the long run. whereas this new movement of leasing a car for just a couple of years and then moving on really hurts cars, as each individual owner will take less care of the car as they don’t have to bear the long-term consequences of not giving a hoot. and 150k is pathetically low milage, might be typical, but thats the root of the problem, we need a fundermental change of what should be considered normal/typical. A good car should last at least 200k. next time you’re in a Prius that is a taxi look at the odometer, you will be surprised to find how much cars can last if they are properly taken care of. My local Toyota dealer (drammen/norway) gave really good deals on the plus versions for taxi companies, most of these cars are still on the road, with 350k miles +, some people in Oslo bought model s to use as a taxi, even though they are 2-3 years newer than the Prius plus, you still never see them around(as taxi).

@@dndfm keep it, or sell it to someone else who then looks after it would be the same. Keeping an ev (even a mild hybrid like the prius) makes perfect sense. Keeping an ICE doesn't as it's emissions from use eventually outweigh the cost of making a new EV. Using Volvo's figures that would be 150000 miles, I dispute their methodology and expect it to me more like 100000.

@@smc812 I have to disagree, if one person is responisble for a car on a long term basis, more than 5 years, he or she will take better care of the car than someone owning it on a 2 year lease plan. on your second point, for me it depends on the car, if its an older diesel/petrol car without particulate filter and its not somones pride and joy it should get of the road, 100% agree there. However, if its a small car(I mean small in personal car i.e sedan wagen etc, not truck/pickup) with euro 6 engine then why not? lots of cars with euro 6 engine produce less than 100g co2 per km, seems wasteful to get those cars of the road, might as well use them until the wheels fall of, by that time the electric cars avilable on the market will be far superior to the ones we already have. i just personally think that we need to teach people to take better care of their cars, its easier than people think, and we can get more out of our cars no matter if they are ICE or EV.

@@smc812 regarding the Volvo figures, I see your point, but I also see Volvo’s point. people will never agree on the figures, I mean where do you even start, just look at the life cycle analysis of the petrol, if it’s from troll station in Norway or if it’s from a station in Basrah in Iraq then the carbon footprint behind it is incredibly different. I don’t think anyone can make a study than can satisfy everyone, I think we need location specific studies as the petrol and electricity you get is probably very different to where I am.

If I had a EV I would totally consider getting flexible solar panels to cover every square inch of the car allowing you to extend the drive distance significantly and to never have to plug in to charge.

Not sure why they dont come factory like that.

Been saying this for years. I also have a question as to why so little investment in comparison is put into clean energy through water seeing as we live on a water based planet. There have been numerous water powered cars over the years using frequencies to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. But quite strangely the creators always seem to die under mysterious circumstances and their work just disappears. 🤫

@@78KRS really interesting what you wrote, going to check this out… see what I can find 😉 thank you

@@AgnesVivarelli1966 Are you talking about Stanley Meyer? I watched a RU-vid video "5 inventers who died mysteriously". A Russian guy invented a plasma battery that powered his house for a year, he disappeared without a trace and men in black confiscated his devices

Germany's Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) has created the Grimmer-Saravia process, enabling a highly eco-friendly way of mining from lithium in geothermal plants; existing facilities. No need to take months and months and millions of square kilometers and destroying fresh water supply and polluting the land. We will discover new methods in the future, whereas ICE is a dead end. We know that. We've put in trillions over the last one and a half century. Also, as for recycling Redwood Materials is doing great. "It would be great if there was also a conversation about the environmental impacts..." you said. You could have found these solutions being worked on by simply Googling it, and discussing it here down in the comments, or writing your own blog, shooting your own RU-vid vlog or even shouting it off your rooftop.

@@keithmarshall7715 yeah he's one of the water car guys probably the most well known.

"Unfortunately in my area, the local power companies have managed to get legislation passed over the years that really strangles the ability of consumers to put in things like solar panels on their homes. " Wow!!

Wow? What country is it?

@@jonasweber9408 The good old USA. Laws governing things like solar panels on your home vary wildly from state to state. Some, like mine, have very anti-consumer focused laws courtesy of the power company and their lobbyists.

@@JookySeaCpt damm that’s not cool

@@JookySeaCpt the US government is in general anti-consumer tbh

It’s sad that posting real data is called a bold move, in a day where profits matter over anything, especially the truth, I guess it’s necessary to cheer it on, rather than simply expecting it

@@nick_0 This is a SCAM! Artificially set a limit of 124,000 Miles to benefit ICE.

There’s been plenty but most don’t agree with this one. Most put the estimate at more like 20,000 miles, although a bit more for an SUV like the XC40.

@@Neojhun not really, you could see from the graph that the EV and ICE lines are consistent, so it doesnt take much to see where the graph goes... you could also argue it benefits EVs since their batteries will need replacing at around the 15 year mark, so there is another bump in emissions. also volvo have committed to be EV only by 2030 so not in their interests to big up ICE 😂

Agenda driven hit piece.

So Tesla's have gone past 500k (miles) and only been diminished to 80% battery density. Thats 800,000km... so not that much at all. Kind of crazy to realize that we are at a time where the battery and drivetrain last that long without any maintenance. Bear in mind that this is early on battery tech, its only been 13 years since Tesla was created and the whole auto industry started switching over only a few years ago. ICE has had 100 years and the best it can do is tons of maintenance, maybe 400,000km with some major maintenance and only 30% efficiency from the tank to the wheels. In 10 years it'll be an embarrassing comparison between electric and ICE when you factor in all the competition that will be ramped up in that time.

What they don't tell you is the battery replacement cost which is 2/3 of the original car price & costs in very rare metals mining are high!! Not to mention we only have a certain amount of rare earth metals hence the name rare earth, the EV dream is exactly that "A DREAM" it's not practical for the long term a bit like "GREEN ENERGY" actually

Totally agree with you on the battery replacement part. Not so much on the trading the car off early part because if the original owner isn't driving it hopefully someone else is and possibly that's someone who can't afford a brand new one or simply chooses not to buy new, or a first time EV owner that wants to try electric without that new car cost. So the miles on that car will still counting. I agree with his point and it's the one that i think is possibly the most important one... How the electricity is produced is to me the most important part of all of this. Along with much better batteries

@@heavenleigh111: Components age. LIke my parents 30 years ago, I don't drive much in retirement. Especially with the desire to be greener and with the Covid-19 pandemic recently (and maybe long term for those of us lacking youthful immune systems). So If I keep my 2017 Camry for 15 years but only drive it 45,000 miles it won't be dead, but I wouldn't count on it lasting as long at 12K miles a year with a new owner as I would a car only 3 to 4 years old. This is good info to have. I just assumed "BEV is better" re CO2, but since I live in coal country for electricity (dark red state and local electric utility runs purely on coal), it might make more sense for me to be patient, and to buy a good, efficient, HEV next time, or maybe a PHEV with a moderate sized battery. Because it's seldom I drive much over 50 miles in a day anyway.

Very good point, was thinking the same thing regarding the battery replacement, not to mention the toxic gases given off by decomposing batteries

@@rogergeyer9851 2 other major points this video mentioned a bit, but did not evaluate. Firstly, the study claimed a "life" for the vehicle of only 124k miles, but only compared the emissions across 90k miles. 124k seems dreadfully short to assume for a battery life or any other life of the vehicle, and it brings up point 2. Secondly, he notes that the vast majority of the carbon footprint for the BEV is in manufacture of the battery, so this brings up a HUGE uncounted carbon cost which would set the EV way back, and perhaps below the ice once again. The Ice may keep steadily climbing as the mileage goes up, but the BEV adds huge stepping stones every time a battery needs to be replaced. OR, its valuable life simply ends, and you are assumed to replace the entire car with brand new manufacture. Where the ice just keeps going for the carbon cost of fuel and maintenance. It also brings up what q mentions... what is the carbon cost for disposal and/or recycling of the batteries? Should that not be added? The ice engine simply gets melted down with the rest of the vehicles metals, but the rare earth materials in the batteries need to be recovered.

I was to make my comment, but you already said it. So, I too think one thing missing here is the battery longevity. Petrol cars can run for decades until the body starts literally rusting off. I'm not convinced any battery can go over ca. 7 years without needing an expensive replacement, hitting the green graph to new low again. EDIT: And I know there are people saying it's okay to lease a car for 5 years anyway. But if you look at the used car market, there are LOADS of petrol cars 10-15 years of age that look fairly modern by all design standards and based on climate run well. Mostly only lacking in digital monitoring-controlling screens etc. I remember someone reviewing a used semi-luxury car and saying all good, but no USB charger plug...

Imagine if cars were meant to last longer but if you took your ice-powered car and instead of making a new model every year you made a new model every other year and then made parts to keep the car running and then instead of getting a new car every 5 years you drove the wheels off the car that you had that would be greener for everybody

Yes, but you've disregarded the majority of the video which agrees exactly with your father in law!

he literally just said that EVs are greener

You do know that Carbon Dioxide is the Gas of LIFE! Reduce the CO2 < 150 PPM and that will kill all the plants and trees on EARTH! The earth ship will have to replace the P and add a "T". While increasing the CO2 to 1,200 or 1,500 PPM will increase top and root growth of plants and trees, while using less water and fertilizer. That sounds Good to me.

The batteries should last at least 200k miles before needing to be replaced but that all depends on how they are treated (since letting them fully discharge often significantly reduces their lifetime). Of course different and better batteries will also be coming in the future to replace current lithium ion.

Unless you are a mechanic this is a horrible idea. People who make 50k+ "average income" can afford a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt.

@@Je_suis_Jefe if someone is making 50-60k a year they absolutely shouldn't buy a brand new car, that is a massively irresponsible financial decision.

Remember kids. You'll own nothing and be happy!

The point is you won't have a car anymore, they're destroying the middle class. Eat bugs and take public transport to your cubicle apartment after you got your 50th booster shot to get your rations, citizen.

@@CrypidLore i never said they should. I said they can. You should do what ever you want.

How many miles are batteries rated for. Do they include figures for any gradual degradation? What about the point when it's time to change the battery. Before I heard it was every 10-15 years or so but perhaps it's longer now.

Totally, and I think this also shows that to really improve the greener-ness of EVs, manufacturers need to focus on reliability and lifespan. Batteries should last longer, as they'll be the biggest replacement and the one that hurts the environment the most. But mostly make EVs that can go half a million kilometers +. Not to continue the trend where it seems like all cars are made for the first buyer, and then no one cares if they go to the scrap yard after 200k kilometers. Who cares if the second owner drives with an eco benefit if they have headache after headache with all the electrical faults or rust.

Small sample size but all the Teslas I have checked for degradation seem to have lost less than 10% range over 150-200,000 km. Leafs much more of course, I have a 190,000 km gen 1 leaf and it has dropped to 59% I also tested a 300,000 km electric taxi that had 98% battery remaining on a fairly odd and heavy battery chemistry.

@@integralhighspeedusb what is the price difference between your leaf and a similar generation Tesla ?

No impact on the environment means the electricity and the tires are all green. Do they come from a recyclable source yet?

Yes, but you do have to watch the rest of the video. And bear in mind that this is the beginning of the EV era. Manufacturing will become more efficient and greener.. more electricity will be generated by wind and solar. The UK is predicted to be a net exporter of electricity by 2030 largely due to massive investment in offshore wind farms.

80,000 km is equal to 50,000 miles.

this

Yeah sure if you live in europe. In my country, South Africa, our power mix is like 80% coal, in that case a EV will never match an ICE.

Its not that simple at all. What are solar panels and wind mills made out of, and where did that material come from, and what maintains those green systems? Fossil fuels. Again, it reduces local pollution, but it doesn't delete pollution as it has to be manufactured in the first place to produce green energy.

@@uni4rm Yes it actually is that simple. Because if you wanna play that game you also have to ask, where does the steel for the oil platform, the oil tankers and the trucks comes from? All creation pollutes, but we have the choice between creating something that only pollutes when created, or something that keeps polluting even after it is created. It's actually that simple.

@@TheSaltyAdmiral Good point.

Not level heaved and way beyond biased. It's a freaking bogus SCAM! Ironic how every just ignored the 124,000 mile limitation. That exact number was chosen to best help ICE's numbers. The longer the BEVs drive the cleaner the outcome. In reality vehicle category like XC40 should be a minimum of 200,000 mile lifespan. Luckily both BEV & 4 banger Petrol cars survive about the same mileage. Sad we're not getting the real numbers.

Production is a more centralized source, making it easier (and cheaper) to monitor, regulate and control than millions of private vehicles spread out all across the world.

I'm living in a country with extremely backwards energy grid and politicians concerned more for the coal industry than climate restoration. I was considering getting an EV next but after this news I don't think I'll be able to reach the break even point before swapping the EV for a new car.

Excellent point. But the challenge with your assumption is that the growing demand for EVs would eventually place a correspondingly higher demand on energy production, which, according to several papers, cannot be supplied by renewable energy sources alone (at least for the time being). Power producers would therefore become more dependent on non-renewable fuels(crude and coal) for energy generation in order to meet this demand. Of course government restrictions can always be used to control the usage of crude and oil, but that would result in higher energy prices, an example of which is already happening in some parts of the world.

except the LIBs are made in China with Coal.

Thats part of the report.

I guess that's on thing that I didn't here addressed is when the batteries need to be replaced then the EV cars would take another big hit as far as pollution! Didn't here that factored in !

and solar cells use coal in the process ......

Need better mass transit

C02 is a natural gas that plants feed off and can be offset by fast growing trees, renewable energy and electric vehicles produce toxic by product far worse than C02 like you mentioned with batteries etc. Most of the world’s renewables are made in China by Uyghur slave labour and coal power plants are used to power those factories there made in. Than there is the toxic by product produced during manufacturing, repairing and disposing of renewables. Alongside EV’s having the exact same toxic by product from manufacturing, repairing and disposing of EV’s themselves. Than there is the growing cost of disposing of EV’s, batteries and renewables which will cost tens of millions annually.

Didn't even look at the report, did you. Not that it's very detailed it's in their page 42.

@@michaelthomas7898 Its the artificial life-time mileage limit used in the report that is the biased problem to support electric vehicles. That's why they released the report as it just favours electric cars. If they were honest about vehicle lingevity and ownership of petrol cars then the curve swings the other way again.

@@captaincrash12 You're not even close. Nothing gets better with age except whisky and wine.

@@michaelthomas7898 Steel Chrome bumper cars will be around long after our plastic cars are waste. You know it. Maybe drink your wine on your steel car picnics and run whisky in the boot for profit. :)

@@captaincrash12 Cars haven't been built with chrome bumpers for almost 50 years now. Think about it.

True but one thing that wasn't clear in this video is if the "lifetime" figure was taking into account electric energy production only using fossil fuels, or renewables, or both. And one thing that I'm also curious about is if we're taking macro things into account like battery production, are we also taking into account things like oil production and transportation into the figure?

Who said all cars have to be electric?

@@Tron08 Good point i always wondered if those figures are put into it. Fossil fuels definitely have an infrastructure that has to be taken into account. Probably the most important thing i think of all the time is the efficiency aspect of it. ICE are only 1/3 efficient of a steam turbine. Which makes an electric vehicle charged with fossil fuels just about 3 times as efficient. So for ever mile you drive in an ICE you could drive 3 in an electric car on the same amount of fossil fuels. Basically we could triple fossil fuel reservers if everything was electric. If we need to use fossil fuels then steam is the best option all around.

@@Tron08 If you watched the video, that was all calculated in. Try watching from 5:25

EV cars are dangerous, if you get a car crash they cough fire in seconds (i saw one myself) and also could kill you by high voltage discharge even when stopped

Recycling of the scrap, used in cars & general heavy industry does happen though & it's actually cheaper to outright build new cars on a new manufacturing line. Retrofitting is too boutique & custom to serve the mass market. Aside from Tesla most manufacturers' margins are too thin, as achieving economies of scale is always the desired outcome which means they need to seek standardisation & build EVs from the ground up. That being said, recycling batteries is something that should & will play a bigger role as batteries are the most expensive components in the cars.

It happens at a small scale just now. You can buy a kit to retrofit your classic Mini for a mere £20k!

@@pumpkinhead456 that’s the problem it’s 20k.. haha

EV west in california has been retro fitting classic vws and porches with electric motors well before ev scene became a thing

And then there is the disposal of all the old car batteries and the mining for new ones.

@@Space-Diver Batteries are being recycled or being reused. As a batterie for Solar Power in your house for example. Mining is not an issue. Getting the lithium is. Mining is not involved in that.

You didnt even watch the video...

@@derpaddy8130 Tell that to most countries in the world, recycling yeah right... and if you think every country has the money to install charging stations all over the place you better think harder. Oh and the F chinese control almost 80% of all lithium deposits now, such good idea to give them even more money.

@@Space-Diver you're using exactly the same arguments people used in the 1800s when household electricity, the telephone and cars came up. Doing the lobby work for Shell and Exxon Mobile for free. Congrats.

Or make our electricity with nuclear, solar, and wind.

It would be a step, but personally i wouldn't say it would be best. EV:s for the win (in my book)

He did mention that when he talked about "well to tank". That's the cost from getting oil from the well to the refinery to the gas stations. A lot of comparisons overlook this point, so I'm glad Volvo included it in their calculation.

Two observations - don't always believe the data Tesla put out. Often it's fake news, or there is asterix which you need to read to get the real information. e.g. Their '0-60' * for their Performance models includes a one foot roll out, so it's actually about 6-60mph. Secondly, the break even point for the TM3 is only 5k miles if you include all the trees and carbon credits Tesla plant and sell. Just the car takes much longer, around 30k miles, the real figure depends on how green the electric is which the owner is putting into it.

@@SDK2006b That 5k miles is real hard data based on reality, not some random figure of a youtube comment. Go read Tesla's 94 page 2020 Impact Report. The only people calling it fake news are those being disrupted by Tesla, namely TeslaQ's disinformation campaign.

@@alsmith358 - ALERT Tesla Fanboy spotted 🤣 I read that document and am entirely familiar with the numbers. You need to look at what Tesla include in the calculation to get to that 5k miles. Please step away from the Tesla brainwash !

​@@SDK2006b ALERT Science denier spotted! You clearly didn't read it. Have fun in your polluted world. As a result, it is not uncommon for the carbon footprint of the use phase to be underreported by up to 50%. Analysis of sustainability reports by auto OEMs shows unrealistic assumptions for both vehicle life and annual mileage. For those that disclose their methodology we have found that vehicle life is often estimated to be as low as 10 years and annual distance traveled by vehicles as low as 6,200 miles. This compares to an average life of 17 years in the U.S. (20 years in Europe) and 12,000 annual miles in the U.S. (and 7,450 in Europe). When taken together, even before considering the impacts of using real-world MPG instead of NEDC, WLTP or EPA ratings, this leads to a drastic under-reporting of Scope 3 emissions. 5.0 million metric tons of CO2e savings To estimate CO2e savings, we first measured the amount of miles driven and kWh of electricity generated at the state, province, and country level for 2020. We then applied an emissions savings factor (in gCO2e/mi for miles driven and gCO2e/kWh for electricity generated), for each state, province, and country. For miles driven, the emissions savings factor is the net of estimated emissions from our vehicles and an ICE with a real-world fuel efficiency rating of 25 mpg. The emissions savings factor is based on grid emissions intensity in each respective location and includes upstream emissions from the production and transport of fuels. We modeled vehicle emissions savings for the U.S., E.U. + EFTA and China, which account for ~90% of miles driven globally. We then scaled the savings to account for 100% of miles driven by dividing by ~90% and arriving at a global estimate for 2020. Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions by Economic Sector For simplicity, select categories were combined based on similarity of emissions source. Emissions from Agriculture were combined with emissions from Land-Use Change and Forestry under the label “Agriculture, Land-Use Change and Forestry.” Emissions from Industrial Processes were combined with emissions from Manufacturing/Construction under the label “Industry.” Emissions from Waste, Fugitive Emissions, Other Fuel Combustion and Bunker Fuels (U.S.-only) were combined under the label “Other Energy.” Scope 1, 2 and 3 Emissions Definition Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from owned or controlled sources. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy. Scope 3 emissions are all indirect emissions (not included in scope 2) that occur in the value chain of the reporting company, including both upstream and downstream emissions. Emissions from the use of a company’s products are included in Scope 3. 5,340 miles At the moment, the manufacturing process of a Model 3 results in slightly higher GHG emissions than an equivalent combustion engine vehicle. However, based on the global weighted average grid mix, a Model 3 has lower lifetime emissions than an equivalent ICE after driving 5,340 miles. Estimate is based on the difference in CO2e emissions from the manufacturing phase on a Fremont-made Model 3 and an equivalent ICE which is then divided by the net CO2e savings per mile from a Model 3 versus an equivalent ICE. Net CO2e savings are based on delivery-weighted global grid mix. 69 tons: Lifetime CO2 emitted by an average combustion engine vehicle (model year 2020) sold in the U.S. through its use phase, excluding CO2 emitted during the oil refining phase. Figure based on EPA's real-world (5-cycle) testing result of 25.7 MPG across all manufacturers for model year 2020, which equates to 344gCO2/mi, and 200,000 lifetime miles. Excludes CO2 emitted during fuel production and transportation. Note: the EPA's real-world testing cycle is not the same as owner-reported MPG sourced from Consumer Reports.

Bingo. I bought an EV cause it's fun to drive and cheap to operate with my level 2 home charger. I don't have to dress up my purchase decision with environmentalism. I love my EV, but also love my ICE SUV.

With the price of petrol being huge in comparison to electricity, cost is a real factor for me in considering an EV. (Admittedly that probably won't last long when the government start to lose money as the tax from petrol disappears meaning they'll have to get it another way)

Likewise. I couldn't give a stuff about hugging trees or any environmental benefits (although I'm ok with knowing there are some). No, I bought my EV because it's much cheaper to run than any petrol car I've ever owned.

and there are issues when the car is crashed (accident) or when it is at the end of its life + batteries (maintenance, recycling, etc)

Nobody wants to talk about worn out wind turbines or lithium batteries, Pete. Still to me, the environmental factors of extracting the lithium tend to get glossed over. This appeared to me to only talk about the "carbon" emissions generated.

If your batteries get damaged your screwed

@@mcdevious2229 the issue is well lithium is very dirty and dangerous to mine we need batteries that are lighter and better for the planet

That, Gulf City, is the sixty-four dollar statement. Lithium works pretty well. Extracting it is a whole 'nother thing.