I know I’ve made dick head comment. I love you brother man. And your content. To repeat my comment variable turbo! Not just for diesels. Debut in the 80s o gas cars! The new Porsche one is awesome! I would rather have your content of choice than owning a Porsche. Even an electric one. Say it again. I love you, brother man.
Thank you very much! I think you covered all the valid points that these negative commenters want to ignore, except that only the wealthy few can afford to buy new EVs. While the rest of us can bearly afford to keep the gas power vehicles we have running.
I will also add the avg energy consumption is high. It doesn’t include me off the grid last year+ all of my electricity came from the sun. I must be some sort of magician out in the woods conjuring up electricity. And when the sun doesn’t shine I have a bicycle attached to an alternator. And it should be illegal to manufacture an electric car without a solar pannel on it.
@Kirk Wolfe You don't need to be hostile. D4A presented the current facts in an adult and educated manner. We should all strive to be mature adults regarding the future of energy production and consumption and how it impacts the living conditions of our childer's futures. Do you want future generations to be fascist, forcing their will onto others?
keeping an old car running effectively is far more useful at reducing total overall pollution than scrapping it and buying a new one. moving away from things like appliances and cars being disposable like cellphones will go much farther than pushing evs
Im so happy you decided to address these people, its starting to become a real problem these days unfortunately. We need more people like you telling the general public that just making EVs doesn't magically make everything better. Thank you!
@@HorstSchlaemmer00 that video is NONSENSE propaganda! I stopped watching when he said "millions of gallons are spilled in the oceans". Tell that IDIOT that oil leakage occurs naturally in the depths of the Oceans and that there are certain bacteria that FEED on that oil and clean it naturally. Green agenda BS! Moreover, I liked the fact that he mentioned pumping oil but didn't touch the mining processes that go into mining rare earth materials for EVs or "renewables".I doubt that he mentioned anything by the end of his clip in relation to production emissions of EVs. Just green propaganda.
Yea allot of people like to boil down extreemly complex problems like climate change, war, gun violence, corruption, polarization, poverty and say if we just "insert comment here" everything will will be fine and we won't have to worry any more, problems like these are not black and white if they were so easy to fix, well humanity would have already done it
30 to 50 years. We will need thousands of new POWER PLANTS. (Not wimpy windmills) The power does not exist to run millions of 30 amp 230 volt chargers at the same time.
Your comments at the end are spot on, I wouldn't be at all surprised if most anti-ICE people have 3 kids, fly away on foreign holidays and heat their homes to 20deg+. But they'll still rush to sign a petiton to ban 20y/o cars from their local city centre...
3 kids are great. looking at the current trends of genderism, western culture will get extinct. I hope that clever people will decide to have enough kids, grow them properly to be able to solve problems of previous generations who had no idea of what are they doing. 20+ deg is a relatavi thing. norway? spain? what are you talking about. :) banning old cars is stupid. swap that baby with a modern engine :D
That's a lot of assumptions for someone who assumes that they are anti-ICE. I'll have my Dodge Viper sucking down 6 miles per gallon because I want to drive it... While still acknowledging that an EV is more practical as a daily driver around town. I'll set my AC down to 65° F, and then my heat... Well I keep my heat at the same spot that's just the temperature I want the house. A little too cold. I'm not for banning any cars. But I'm also for most of you appliance drivers to switch over to EVs because they will work for most of you. It may not work for most of Europe where he is because a ton of people live in shoe boxes but the problem here in the US is the fact that we're all sprawled out in our own personal family homes with our own garage and our own electrical meter and you literally just need to plug it into the wall
@@TravisFabel Then make sure EVs are sold at reasonable prices instead of costing 30% more then same car with ICE engine... As for you being in USA what does that matter you once again gave opinion of someone who clearly has money for multiple cars probably lives in dope half mansion home and you are acting as if that's standard, pretty sure not everyone in US is stacked with money ready to throw it around.
It’s the polarized views that our current system rewards. I am an engineer and no one solution exists to everything. We need a lot more cooperation and less fighting. ❤
n really the only efficient way to reduce emissions is public transportation. Public transport would have to be so hustle free so convenient that the far majority of us would rather use that than our personal cars n reduce use to maybe once or twice a week. That not Only reduces emissions but traffic/congestion or rush hour giving us more live our lives, cause i don't know about you but i miss the days when everything was 15 minutes away depending on how fast n furious you were 😂😂😂. Now its a f$cking hours trip😡😡😡
Most of the western governments have been stoking the fires that have created all the division, the education system have added to this by creating mass fear around global warming in our kids. There's a hell of a lot of finger pointing going on, & no realistic, long term solutions are being brought to the table..
100% true. Thanks for clearing the air, bro! The only people repeating the echo chamber thoughts about EVs have no idea how they physically work and the infrastructure demands associated with all-EV commerce.
Yeah... And the electricity what comes form power plants doesnt all go to the houses and cars etc.. If i remember right about 40% to 60% goes off by chancing the voltages etc down the line....
ICE engines faced the same thing back in the day. Horse riders said all the stuff the ICE drivers are saying today and how did that turn out? Fact is, when governments pass laws that push in a certain direction, business follows or business dies. Old businesses go to the wall and bright new businesses step into their place offering what the dinosaurs couldn't or wouldn't. That's the way of life. All things die and we're in the era of the death of the ICE car for public use. Secondly, we';re just at the start of a serious push towards EVs so of course they don't compare with ICE which has been developed for over a century and a half including all the support infrastructure but EV will catch up and will replace ICE.
The infrastructure is a challenge, but not the primary one. Lithium supply is the bottleneck. We only have around 1/20th of the required lithium mining capacity, and environmental groups are blocking new lithium mines. Everything else is just details. There are simply not enough raw materials.
@@joels7605 at least in the US grid capacity is also a critical bottleneck. Without commissioning new nuclear derived power stations and a viable alternative to Lithium cells, the ideal EV future everyone's clamoring about probably isn't going to happen any time soon.
@@captainwin6333 You have understand nothing of the video. ICE vehicles was better then horses, EVs are not better than ICEs. Not for now. But if you only want to nourish chinese economy, EVs are the perfect solution.
I'm a mechanical engineer. I've been giving people similar arguments why EVs aren't happening for 30 years. The power grid isn't there. The generation capacity isn't there. Battery and solar tech are martial intensive. Maybe if we went to modular nuclear reactors, but no one wants those either.
Which is to say nothing of the requirement of resources. Copper as a basic one. Where is it all going to come from overnight? We talk about reducong the co2, how much co2 will be spent building the infrastructure and how long till we see that offset? Its all a little rediculous when you understand things on a deeper level. Most people fail to understand their morning coffee and toast are the most damaging to the environment which could be changed overnight. Ever looked into how much water goes into avocados or worse yet, almonds? Cars arent our biggest problem.
@Enrique Thiele If EVs are such a disruptive technology then they would stand on their own merit in free market without huge government subsidies and legislation in their favor. There was no such subsidies for IC cars except for building roadways. That infrastructure now exists except EVs aren't paying their fair share in road taxes ad another form of hidden subsidy.
2 года назад
the best thing we can do are hybrids, molten salt reactors. EV is good for some small 2 passenger shared city car (like shared bikes)
Wind and solar are too intermittent to meet the day to day demands, tidal has the potential to help the supply which while still intermittent it is predictable. Like we know what the tides are doing today, next week or 10 years from now but do we invest ... no because they are more expensive than wind turbines.
MNRs are the future no eco-sheep will admit to. Dumbasses have a total superstition against nuclear and they would prefer destroying habitats with laughably inefficient solar arrays instead
I don’t understand why you don’t have more subs. You are by FAR the most logical content creator delivering intelligent material. Please don’t be deterred by the comments of the lowest common denominator. Thank you for doing you.
On the Autobahn, an good ICE car beat the crap out of any EV, if you run at 300km/hr +. We should see more of these videos. An average diesel truck beats any thing Tardsla can throw it at.
Except this is a bunch of false assumption and outdated numbers to push misinformation. He already has way too much subs and views because such misinformation is popular to easily brainwashed.
Logic is not popular, never been, quiet possibly never will be. Lets be honest us nerds are a njche audience. Yes, i said it, petrolheads are just nerds with machine grease. ...on the bright side we have channels like Isaac Arthur, Common Sense skeptic ...etc. Basically the "come wit us to te Nebula platform" crowd. The real question why this channel is not among them.
If you’re not already an engineer, you certainly think like one. Very pragmatic and think intuitively about issues and how they are solved, and if they are solved efficiently and effectively. Love your videos
Well said. This is the way you cut through the bs. He also goes a step further than repeating stats. The more you can remove yourself from opinions/biases/feelings/anecdotal evidence/scientific denial/agendas/politics, the closer you get to reality, and what options for measurable progress are available. No matter what the issue, or conclusion you come to, you will run into opposition. Any two people can have a difference of opinion, but no one should settle on a difference of fact. Dealing with problems pragmatically shouldn't be a rarity, yet it is, enough to be refreshing when i see it.
@@ctdieselnut I like the "thinks like an engineer" comment. It's complimentary to engineers. You're comment touches closer to the central truth which, I think, is simply that d4a thinks for himself. He consumes information from all relevant sides, and valuing objective truth, forms his own opinion with his own mind. I say this not just to commend d4a, but to promote that habit which is indeed too rare. The commonplace habit is to jump on a bandwagon and pledge loyalty to groupthink. Groupthink is boring. Individuals invested in the truth are interesting.
Brother, 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 the last part killed me 😂seriously though, this video should be televised on every station worldwide. Keep up the good content. You're a legend.
it wont be bc industry discovered EVs (and all that "green" stuff) as their new cash cow bc people buy it out of the best reason u can get as a company: egocentrical and ideological reasons to make themselves feel better (by thinking they doing SO good deeds and thus being SUCH good humans), just like they did in mediveal to release their sins
THANK YOU. One of many things that annoys me about this "electric is here now" argument is that it seems to have NO memory of the past. If you'd asked people in 1999 what engines we'd have in 2022, they'd have all said something other than the ICE. However, here we are 24 years later, with ICEs. YET... the other day when I told someone that I might keep my manual Mazda to teach my 12 year old son to drive on, they were like "Sorry but he won't be driving petrol." LOL, righto... so in 24 years we've managed to turn about 5% of cars on the road to electric OR hybrid... but in the next 4, that's going to become 100%?
No, but it will be 33% of new production. Dude, I get it. I wish we could all be blasting around on air cooled 2 stroke motorcycles, but like it or not, Times are changing.
Pray tell, which country are 5% of the cars on the road electric and hybrid?. If were speaking globally, electric and hybrid would be really struggling to make 0. 005%.
EVs are far less than 5%, and cost double to insure, and triple to buy. The majority of cars may be priced off the road, but current car numbers will never be electric.
yeah, and there's other even bigger problem that no one talks about, the more EV cars you have, the more energy youll need. if the world struggles even to maintain electricity on houses, it's impossible for EV cars
I've been a master mechanic for over thirty years. The ice engine has a century of refinement and the infrastructure to support is established and proven. The rush to electric is just that, a rush. To think we can switch to electric cars overnight is lunacy. Don't believe just wait a few years and see. Great video, love your channel !
To think we can convert at all is lunacy. But then again, the naysayers said we would never convert to flying cars, cryogenics and tele-transportation.
@@miltonfriedman2325 Well first of all, obviously we'll never convert to actual flying cars. But also, it's not just about what the "naysayers" say, it's about common sense, and research. When you realize just what the consequences of making electric cars are, and when you realize that cars not nearly the problem when it comes to carbon emissions (AHEM harvesting season AHEM), you can come to the conclusion that sometimes not all things are meant to be, no matter how good our technology is.
@@SuperDirk1965 High capacity batteries are not. The Lithium-ion battery is barely a decade old, and still massively heavy despite not having legendary range. If you were American that'd be normal to have a 2-ton car, but outside of N America and Europe, cars are mostly 800kg steel kites with sub-1L engines. That is still above the competition
I've watched many of your videos and enjoyed them all. And learned from them. But this is the first one I am leaving a comment on. THANK YOU for your objective analysis of all things, including the EV hype. Being able to cut through media hype to focus on real issues is a critical skill. Besides being able to do it yourself, you are also teaching others to do it. Bravo.
Lots of people are, but too many have their heads buried in the sands of big tech messaging and agenda, believing this to to be the reality of the public mind. It's not.
Your channel just keeps getting better and better because you pick on the hard subjects and do a great job of it. Your differential episode is now topped by this episode because it has an impact like no other. Love your work and choices man.
It wast mentioned in video, but the most efficient green way to travel is to use trains instead if cars, and build nuclear power plants You see, electric trains are in fact hyper-futuristic EV vehicles, that dont need to ride with useless heavy battery all the time
Exactly! Almost all mobility solutions can be accurately described as “trains but worse.” Cars are great for hobby time, or extremely low volume point to point trips. Robust train grids could replace the vast majority of car trips, and complete them both faster and more efficiently for the individual.
I already liked your content (as a car mechatronic freshly out of school you wouldn't believe me how much your videos helped me during my studies), but now I seen a new "side" of you at the end of the video which reminded me of myself. Finally, I glad that I'm not the only one feeling this way. We (humans) should know, most of our problems come from the society that we built. And by developing and consuming more and more of the Earth's resources will not solve the problems or it'll make the situation even worse. Once again I love your videos and you made my day❤️❤️❤️
the problem is that a lot of people dont have the humility to admit hat what we made is wrong , im surprised at how many people dont admit their mistake and play along hoping they culd trick people into thinking wath they did is actualy rigth , by this im refering to many governanents doing stupid things that people started to acept as normal , but also refering to individuals in general
Thank you for getting the point. So many people in the comments immediately thought I have an agenda just because what I said disagrees with their personal agenda.
Even though this will more than likely not quiet the EV extremists out there, I applaud you for a very well done commentary on the subject and am totally on your side in the viewpoint. Well done sir! 👊👊👊👊👊
@@Papinak2 time to charge. Most people in America live in single family homes. Most EV drivers around the globe right now are wealthier and likely to have charging at home. EVs charged at home take about 10 seconds a day so waste much less of your time than refueling a gas car. By the time cheap used EVs are available, home charging will be available at apartments. EVs are MORE convenient than gasoline. Not less. Do i need to go point by point? The guy is wrong like this for the entire video.
Thank you for addressing this tunnel vision problem with EVs. I’m personally excited by battery technology but it is not a panacea. It’s another tool in the toolbox of resources we have here on earth, batteries are really good for some applications and impractical for others.
I really think it would be better to used the Mild electric that would feed a supercharger from the brakes the way Volvo uses the brakes to charge a battery , you could use the power to spin a supercharger in the valley instead of a belt. The power to accelerate would be balanced by the use of the brakes. Make it so some stored energy to spin a 1.5L supercharger on a 3.5 - 4.0 pushrod V8 in the valley. Acc and braking are balanced.
@@williammeek4078 I just can’t see every apt complex with a charger for each space and how much a landlord would have to raise the rent. The coal gas and nuclear plants that would have to be built.
@@Bbbbad724 especially in urban apartment complexes, only level 1 charging would be needed. That would not be expensive to install. At 2 kW per charger, a 100 unit complex would need 200 kW of additional power available. A 100 unit complex uses about 200 kW so yes, improved electric service would be needed, but not a crazy amount. And no, the idea that RE needs fossil backup is a myth.
I bought a GR Yaris two weeks ago (after waiting for what felt like an eternity) and one of my acquaintances immediately started slagging me off for buying a gas guzzling dinosaur, ruining the environment and that his IONIQ5 can beat me anyway. Tried to explain to him that I drive less than half of what he drives in a year, I don't have kids and don't plan on having them (he has 2), I use public transport in the city and I cut my meat consumption by about 80% in the past 2 years. Did he listen? No. Kept talking about my tailpipe's CO2 pollution and was unable to grasp that our environmental impact is the sum of all our actions. I'd almost say that these people aren't worth acknowledging and responding to, but still glad you made this video!
@@GOLEG11 You're getting the roided out version soon hehe. If the GR Corolla is even half as good as the Yaris, it'd still be one of the most fun cars you could possibly buy. Coming from having a Fiesta ST before, words fail me to describe how awesome the drivetrain is. If you can, 100% get yourself on a waiting list.
Using a 3000+ lbs vehicle to move a ~150 lbs person just isn't an efficient way of transportation to begin with. That's why we need a massive shift towards public transport, and/or at the opposite end of the spectrum, PEVs (personal EVs). I live in a small city and I cycle to work as much as possible, and when I don't feel like it I use an e-scooter. At 25 Wh/km, that's 1/8th of the Taycan's energy consumption. And it's enjoyable. Also, voting for a party that will actually make good decisions on climate issues may be the most significant thing we can do as individuals.
The US is too rural for public transportation to work in most places and most people don't want to ride bikes as they prefer comfortability over efficiency.
Finally somebody that tells people what they need to hear! Often times when you tell these people that their electric cars pollute just as much as gasoline cars in the production process ,they will try to skip the question.THANK YOU
Theoretically, EVs are *supposed* to pollute less after a couple years because of the pollution making it. But that will never happen because, as we all know, EV drivers are idiots and can’t drive a car to save their life. These cars will never make it to even a few years. Hydrogen cars are the future.
LOL that is absurd nonsense. FYI a slower weaker 30mpg car over 300,000 miles consumes 62,000lbs 28.5 tonnes of Fuel. A 80kwh BEV charging on the Dirty USA Grid mix will consume no where close to that amount of fossil fuels. Your falsehoods only works at 0 ZERO Miles when they cars are never used.
Thanks! I've enjoyed your technical content on ICE configuration, primary/ secondary vibration, etc, for some time but this one moved me to help support the channel, if only in a very, small way. I'll be sharing this one heavily.
Thank you! 100% agree. You brought to the table quite important data that some folks try to keep silent about, for example, the percentage of heavy transportation and the feasibility of its electrification. Many wealthy people nowadays are shouting for electrification and fewer emissions while at the same time enjoying the luxury of Air conditioning, effectively they just push gas emissions away from their neighborhood and buy themselves clear conscience.
Heavy vehicles are the best for electrification. Those that do change will make a killing because the fuel cost is much lower for BEVs and fuel costs are the primary expense of operating heavy vehicles.
@@williammeek4078 If you mean heavy transport we already have electric trolleys and railways. If you mean electric busses or heavy machinery, you can be the one to find the precious metals for that lol
The biggest guiding rule I follow in life is 'Actions speak louder than words' and when you apply that to anything it is true. And all the government climate bullshit with their endless conferences and pledges and nothing ever happens... this is so damn true. You have proven this PERFECTLY!!
The most backwards step by most countries was to ban nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the only viable source of electricity for the "inevitable EV future". In the meantime, CNG powered vehicles are an excellent alternative. It's cheaper, much cleaner and readily adaptable to any ICE car. I've been running on CNG for the last 10 years and about 500,000 miles with no problems. The investment is small, the infrastructure needed for the charging is very simple and refueling is fast.
Have you not seen the writing on the wall? You have not put much effort into researching this topic. Look at France. Half their NPP are shut down because of repairs, in the summer they need to be shut down because of cooling problems, the only new NPP they are building should have been finished 2013, now maybe 2023 (Flamanville) and will cost close to 20 billion dollars instead 3.5 or so. Don't get me started on nuclear waste, which is transported to Russia to get buried there, God knows where. Also the "fuel" is getting more expensive as I'm writing and the mining destroys the environment. Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity in the world. And you may have to deal with accidents like Fukushima. Nuclear is dead. The only countries in the world relying on nuclear will be the ones with nuclear warheads, since you kind of need the waste of the NPP.
@@computercrack Tell that to the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Spain and Romania. These are just the EU members which run nuclear power (France excluded), but I am sure they'd just love to be enlightened by you. That said, if France switches off "half their nuclear power plants" that means 27 are still running. You also need to read up on what the hell a CASTOR is and where they go. Nuclear power is far from dead, it is the only feasible way to produce enough electricity for green "projects" without burning fossil fuels and thus increase CO2 output. Mining uranium "destroys the environment", but mining for copper, gold and lithium does not? Yeah, sure. The "writing on the wall" was probably just put there by people like you with too easy access to spray cans ...
@@computercrack Nuclear has some of the highest upfront costs, but again, we do not have another source of energy that can output the sheer amount of energy in a "clean" fashion. The total combined infrastructure costs to make solar panels, windmills, hydroelectric dams produce enough power to fuel our ridiculous consumption will cost magnitudes more than building enough nuclear plants to do the same. Sure nuclear is by no means environmentally friendly, but neither is manufacturing the billions of solar panels required, or the millions of windmills that kill flying wildlife on genocidal levels while making enough noise to make a straight piped honda cry, or the disruption of aquatic animals using thousands of dams to produce that level of energy. The least costly method to saving the planet is reducing consumption, but good luck convincing anyone to do that. Nuclear seems like the only viable option
@Uli Krosse of course there are countries still running NPP, even Germany has still three. But right now there are only THREE new ones being built in whole Europe! Given the age of most of these things, that number should be probably built per year just to replace the old ones! And not it's not the only way to produce electricity without CO2 emissions. Ever heard of wind an sun? Laughably cheap compared to nuclear, even taking into account battery storage for the electricity. You can think what you want but nuclear is dead, at least in Europe. The IAEA expects relative reduction of 19-62% (2017-2050). Worldwide they expect either a decrease of 10% or an increase of 90%. But given the economic realities it would be absolutely unreal to reach that number. Call me in 28 years.
@White Chocolate Thunder the next one to know nothing about solar and wind. 1000sqkm of solar panels in the Sahara desert could power all of Europe (look here on RU-vid "Sahara solar panels" ). No need to build nuclear and deal with all the problems. Also for the cost of the Flamanville power plant (20 bill€) France could have built several Gigawatt worth of energy wind and solar, not just 1.6GW. Also these solar and wind farms would be producing electricity for years already. Your claims about dead birds are nonsense, you can look up any serious investigation and will find that this is no problem. Also about the acoustic. Have you ever been to a windmill? You can stand right next to it and talk just normally. Proof: several yt videos showing people exactly doing that.
THANK GOD!!! FINALLY, someone speaking the TRUTH about EVs vs. ICEs!! Outstanding and objective analysis, D4A. Very much appreciated. Here in California, we can't even produce enough electricity to keep our HOUSES properly powered! Without SIGNIFICANT new power generation capabilities across the world, ICEs will be with us indefinitely.
You know how much electric and other energy is needed to refine the crude oil to gas? From the well to the pump? Also how much money is being spent for wars and oil subsidies?
@@riba2233 You know how much electric and other energy is being used to launch ships and satellites into space and how much money is being spent for deep sea research? See, I can do it, too. You didn't address my point that we don't have enough electric power generation ALREADY, let alone if 50 - 100% of all vehicles on the road were to go electric. The fact is, the ENTIRE western US could be covered in the most efficient solar panels made and it wouldn't be enough power generation for California's current demand ALONE! On top of all of this, California hasn't built a new power generation plant in decades. Throw out all the red herrings you like but my point remains. We don't have enough power NOW and will have far, far less should even 25% of California's vehicles go electric.
@@maxcactus7 lol, your analogy is pure rubbish while mine really means something in this context. Since you weren't smart enough to take a hint, I was implying how by converting to ev's lot of energy used for refining oil and wars we use today could go towards ev's. And what is best of all, ev's use around 5 times less energy for the whole cycle so in the end it would benefit us greatly, no to mention removing pollution from the places we actually live in.
This is just plain inaccurate. Engineering explained has a great video explaining why this is just a silly idea to spread and why its totally possible to power evs easily within a decade
Your every word is pure gold, especially the last segment of the video. I live in a small town in Serbia and I keep telling all my friends and family that they don't need to drive their cars wherever they go (we say they would go to the bathroom with them if they could), everything here can be reached on foot. I bought my dream car last year and I only drive it on the weekends, when I have a scenic destination/route in mind, other days I just make sure it's in mint condition, and I believe that if more people embraced a similar approach we would reduce car emissions by a lot more than whatever EVs were supposed to achieve. I understand trailers and other hauling/logistics vehicles can't be used like this but as shown in the video the majority of vehicle pollution comes from passenger vehicles. Keep it up, all the best from a friendly neighbour!
This! I'm glad other people realize this as well. You don't need to travel everywhere with a car! I wish more people would use cars like you mentioned, in an enjoyable way. Not putting around 5mph in traffic polluting the air so you can get to work and join a Zoom call 🙄
Governments grow their populations in order to pay themselves more, grow creditbubbles & hide the shortcomings of their respective economic presumptions. Gov actions I observe are all about maximising their stifling control and extraction from the population. Your lifestyle is the sensible counterpoint.to the efforts of Politico-corporate fascists gov
@@TheBandit7613 I got a 1994 BMW E36 :) Nothing fancy, it's not an M (couldn't afford nor find a sedan version), but it is a 6pot and I love it to bits ^^ Always wanted a naturally aspirated inline 6 and the E36 offers the creature comforts that I enjoy, some "modern" tech, yet is simple enough to be worked on by an amateur in his spare time. I plan on building it up quite a bit, eventually (perhaps) putting the S50 EU engine into it as well. The Mustang is an absolute beauty! When it comes to SUVs I'd either go Wrangler or something Japanese, like the Land Cruiser.
@@jonnyq87 Nice choice. Inline 6 happens to be one of my favorite engines. Smooth torque. Like being pushed by the hand of god! No drama and good longevity.
8:44 and 11:30 I love hearing you mock "zero emissions" and this needs to be done more. I remember spending some time on this in college and with the limited resources available during my research, it seemed like you'd be "greener" driving a liquid natural gas civic than an electric car if that was your main concern. As soon as that exhaust pipe isn't connected to the car, people just assume they have nothing to do with it. We also already have rolling blackouts because of high power usage during the summer. What happens to the grid capacity when we have everyone charging their cars? The magical electric fairy just makes that irrelevant?
The other point is those that thinks purchasing green electricity change the electricity used to charge their car. It doesn't, contracts don't route electricity in the supply grid.
Assuming that charging is perfectly even, ie no high demand spikes just constant power flow grid capacity would have to DOUBLE if everybody switched to electric. In practice you'll always get demand spikes, for example everybody comes home from work and plugs in - you'll probably need to more than TRIPLE the capacity.
Another way of thinking - an average house in my area has a grid connection rated at around ~20kW of power. An average electric car consumes about 15-25kWh per 100km. That means to add 100km range we need to charge for ~1 hour. If we want a fast charger we need more power. How much ? Well it's simple maths, 500km is 5 times 100km, 5x 25 kwh = 125 kwh. To get that much energy in 30 minutes we need 250kW of power. My small village has around 1000 people, ~250 households. Most houses have at least 1 car, some have 2. The entire village has 5 pole mounted distribution transformers, rated at ~200kW (or technically kVA, but nevermind) each. On average 50 houses. But 200/50 is only 4 kW you say. Well it's assumed that not everybody will draw full power simultaniously, so they are undersized. But lets get back to the point. Notice the transformers are around the same power as a fast charger. That's right, the power needed for 1 (ONE) fast charger is enough to power 50 houses. If we assume that everybody has a car, they would need to be perfectly distributed in time in order to work. If somebody attempts to fast charge 2 cars simultaniously it would overload the grid. Tl;DR people have no clue just how much power it would take.
@@HorstSchlaemmer00 Gas for electricity generation is also transported in ships to a significant extent, as is coal. Without refineries I'd love to know how all your plastics are going to exist. OK to pollute elsewhere for EV's but not in your backyard. Exhaust emissions from modern lorries are extremely clean. Normal spin from Robert (who has got a big house with his own solar cells and power wall). How is the Lithium mined and shipped? Not using any diesel powered machines or ships is it?
This is the best video explaining exactly what is going on in our world today. Politicians can yap and grandstand all they want but in the end it is not rational or constructive thinking. The same goes for environmental protection warriors and associations, no amount of media, protesting, or green hair dye will change the outcome. The problem is as it has been since the beginning of society, the problem is the human being. Humans are consumers, and the Earth is it's consumable.
the most eco friendly way to reduce emission is to fit a natural gas tank in your car if you can and there are stations around you that supply it, if your car runs on petrol and it's not too small to fit it. or, drive a smaller car, like a mx5, instead of big SUVs
Loved the video. The next hard pill that "electric is the future" people need to swallow is that building new nuclear power plants is the only way forward. The world doesn't have enough available land for wind and solar to replace fossil fuels.
As an electrician I can say that a bank of “fast chargers” requires a small electric substation. Drawing up to 120,000 watts per charger, that’s about 100 electric toasters all running at the same time
One thing that also wasnt touched on is powergrid capacity. I live in switzerland. The past 5 years has seen a massive increase in EV and plugin hybrid use. Its at the point now that people storing their cars in underground garages under apartment buildings are wanting to plug in their EVs but it would require the building owners to install new wiring and highvoltage charging ports that cost a fortune and many are either not willing to do it or the local energy supplier dosent allow it for the simple fact they are already nearing their electricity production capability. With the gas shortage due to the russians and the government asking people not to charge their cars overnight because of it, i think many people are starting to see that a full EV future is still decades if not a century away.
Surprised more people aren't bringing this up. I'm all for electrification but the grid worldwide is going to have to be MASSIVELY upgraded to keep up with the increased power demand. Converting gas cars to electric doesn't eliminate that energy usage, it moves it to a system that in many cases is already overloaded. Gotta focus on that first.
in the US summer/winter tend to run around 80% capacity on average. 20% away from needing rolling blackouts and things breaking down, and it takes years to add more power. plus the delivery needs to be upgraded even more. the grid is around 30 years behind what it should be and the worst part is EVs basically 3x power usage
Century is a bit of a stretch. A century is a *LONG* time as far as technological progress is concerned. At least as of now, most fields of science and technology arent slowing down, so just look at where we were a century ago. I would be surprised if, a century from now, we didnt have, for example, an economic, as in basically free, way to get stuff into orbit. Like sky hooks. This would basically rid of of the only real disadvantage of nuclear energy entirely, the waste. If we didnt figure out fusion til then anyways. But yeah, not gonna happen overnight. Certainly more than a hand full of years away. But getting people to switch to EVs, at least in theory, is a good thing in the long run, as long as we then dont treat those cars like something you have to replace every other year, like many people do with a lot of tech.
Loved the whole video! Ive had the exact same perception of the EV movement for years now, but what i loved the most is that you said that statistics is NOT science! You and i are on the same wavelength (we both have thought this through for ourselves and come to the same conclusion!) Thank you!
Awesome installment as usual! Unfortunately there are many unenlightened people that cannot see the big picture when it comes to EVs. Kudos to you for speaking up and going against this wave of popular belief, a breath of fresh air for a change on the topic. Keep doing what you do!
Those same unenlightened people will remain unenlightened if you smack the facts into their face with a shovel. Willful ignorance or denial, you will never change them. Great video as most always!
@@MikeF055 Nature solves this problem in two ways: Make individual life finite and make violating basic facts of life leading to decimation, esp. over multiple generations. You can't do much about it except maybe not disturbing nature doing its job.
Your maths on he number of level 3 chargers is highly dubious. If I have an EV (Nissan Leaf) and do 7000 miles per year then I drive an average of 135 miles per week. The energy needed for 135 miles is around 35 kWh. This will take less than 1 hour on a 50Kw charger. They be provided whilst I do my weekly shop at the supermarket. So we do not need all these level 3 chargers and we do not neeed most of the parking spaces around blocks of flats to be charger spaces. Then 2 further things kick in. (1) governments will have to incentivise toward more efficient EVs. Citroen Amigo is a better town car than a sports car. (2) The government incentivises shared cars. Why do we own cars and have then sitting parked for 95% of the time.
It shows an inability to change mindset. With an ICE vehicle you have to find a filling station and hover over it whilst you refill it, which is a bore so surely the longer time to charge an EV must be more of a bore, whereas in fact with an EV you either charge it overnight at home or do something concurrent, like shopping or stopping for a meal on a longer journey. Public chargers are evolving and will in the future, like Tesla, automatically identify the vehicle and take payment without user interaction, which will make it even more straight forward. The irony of him walking outside to show rows of parked cars doing nothing and nobody driving about was not lost on me too.
Thank you. The world needs videos like this. I've said it for years. Just like 100 of millions of others. EV's are not the solution nor will it ever be.
I respect you man, I 100% agree and have been saying very similar myself for years. Im not anti-EV, I agree it has its place for certain people. I wouldn't even mind one as a daily driver if I could charge it at home. But its is not the be-all-end-all solution it seems to be being seen as/marketed as. Nobody wants to admit we live in an extremely selfish society and its nice to hear more people speak about that. Theres a lot more green-washing in recent years and I think EVs have been a big part of that.
I know a lot of other people are saying the same thing, but I just wanted to say with them that this video is extremely well-made, informative, and useful. Thank you.
One of my favorite videos from you over the years! Awesome to see your progress with editing, writing and your camera presence! This video was much needed for a lot of people I know who consider themselves "smart."
Fantastic video overall, especially the ending. There is a mistake at 00:14:00 which does not squader your overall argument. It is incorrect to predict that the electricity generation will rise by 8.25%. The end-to-end efficiency of the entire fuel cycle has to be simulated to get a correct answer here, but this is where the relative efficiency of an internal combustion engine versus an electric motor would come in for example. Other factors will work for and against here, like the overall efficiency factors of steam generators. But the value you have predicted is not correct and *not* because we hope the new sources of power will renewable (and hence contribute 0%). The C02 costs of making all of the new equipment notwithstanding (as you correctly pointed out). Also, the switch to electricity from the transport of liquid fuels nets two big benefits that the graph can not show: a reduction in using ICE engines to transport fuel around, and crucially - interoperability from the electric grid. An electric grid is can be the USB-C standard for whatever new or local power generation or renewable technology you need. Even if everything I have said is false and your statement is true (we swap out all of the electric vehicles for no betterment in C02), this can still be a big win in terms of corporate greed. For too long, the difficulty of producing hydrocarbon fuels resulted centralization and control (and even war, again and again) which has prevented the real cost of pollution from being accounted for. And unlike the electricity grid, there are alternative ways to produce electricity.
If you count the cost of transporting gasoline, also count the cost of transporting electricity: - Electrical grid maintenance. - Wildfires caused by aging electrical grids. - Transmission line losses (small). - Passive battery discharge. Impacts occasional drivers. - Battery charging inefficiencies. (Nobody spills 20% of their fuel on the ground at the gas station.) I do like the idea of charging one's car from solar panels, etc. But I have lived too long to believe this will reverse the trend toward centralized power. They are already proposing traffic cameras to robotically bill you just for driving. The rate paid will be dictated using the full monopoly force of the armed state. Taxation by microtransaction.
Even if every electric car was charged by fossil fuel power generation, it would still be far more efficient than driving an internal combustion car, because of two reasons. The first is that the power station is able to opereate it's generators at optimal rpm and efficiency at all times, where as cars have to deal with varying RPM and periods of sub optimal gearing and torque output. ICE engines can only operate at peak efficiency in a narrow window of RPM and load. The second reason is when you apply the brakes on an ICE vehicle, all of that kinetic energy is turned into heat, and completely wasted. When you apply the brakes on an electric car, a decent portion of that energy drives a generator recycle that energy back into the battery, and subsequently, back to the drive motor. The electric motor also operates at peak torque throughout it's entire RPM range, and doea not require a transmission, which further increases efficiency. Electric motors also have far less internal friction to overcome. Almost none, in fact. Let's also not forget the incredible amount of energy spent just trucking fuel over the road to thousands of individual fuel stations. That being said, 0% of power comes from coal where I live. We use mostly natural gas and nuclear power, supplemented with 4% wind, solar, hydro, and bio mass.
@@MH-Tesla You cant electrify that fast. The charging infrastructure, the increased load, the battery manufacturing plants wont be available until 2035.
@@vorpalinferno9711 It takes about the same amount of electricity to refine a tank of gasoline as to charge an EV. The infrastructure of adding a few wires to deliver that electricity to cars is already well under way. its vastly more simple than building gas stations, and far fewer are needed as most charging will happen at home.
Haha I'm a physics teacher so we talk about EVs, energy density in fuel and all that sorta stuff periodically. The kids always bring up this point of engine noise and I tell them they can stick a baseball card in the spokes 😂
so what is a problem to produce the sound from speakers? even more! EV can mimic the performance of a programmed vehicle. just imagine you get into a car and select Ferrari's V12 from 60s kind of power and torque. the other day you can experience Honda's VTEC turbo. isn't it fascinating?)
@@ugumol No. This would not resolve the issue of excess weight and reduced control on it. An actual ICE works just perfect with a manual transmission, so we 'd best keep ICEs and manual transmissions alive, powering them with E100 as oil is so bad for the environment.
@@Lina_Antoniou what is "reduced control"? I agree with you that at the moment batteries have low power density which makes EVs heavier. There are some researches that promise to increase power density twice or so. In this case we could make EVs lighter or to give them extra range with the same mass
@@ugumol In the case of an ICE paired to a manual transmission, being in the correct gear for the corner you are approaching or already taking helps keep the car under control even if you 're pushing it 10/10 (for example you have to take someone to the nearest hospital really fast). EVs, in addition to being inherently much heavier, remove the advantage of using the transmission as a means of fighting inertia, so EVs are not as safe in the real world as ICE cars. This is what I was trying to point out. Inertia is very dangerous, so we need everything we can have for safe driving under pressure.
Oh my God - THANK YOU for making this video! I've been beating this figurative drum for many years now, all the while watching everyone around me roll their eyes and think I'm nuts. You're so right, humanity's insatiable desire for new crap (cars) every few years is a huge problem. If we all just drove our old cars for 20 years or more (on average), we actually make a difference towards saving the plant.
Comparing marginal emissions per mile of an old car with lifetime emissions per mile of a new car tells you whether it is better to keep on driving the old one or scrap it and get a new one. Often, it's better to scrap the old one and get a new (EV) one. Background: yes, production of an EV generates a lot of emissions. But in use, they generate much less emissions than a petrol car. If the EV lasts long enough to exceed the break even point (which they nearly always do), a new EV is better than a new petrol car. Now, your old car is already there, so you don't have to produce it anymore. Say your old car has marignal emissions of X/mile. The new car has emissions of Y during production and subsequently Z/mile. Thus, if (Y/mileage life of new car + Z) < X, it's better to scrap the old car and get the new car. If you don't scrap the old car but sell it to someone else who has an even older (even more pulliting) car, who then scraps that even older car, you shouldn't look at X of your car in the above equation, but at X of that older car. This also holds if there are more steps (cars/owners) in between.
Um yes. We can all do algebra, but your point completely relies on presumptions in its favour. Hard to argue with that, or better still, why bother ? If that's your belief, fine, you're entitled to it. Personally as I think I was quite clear on, I fully support the vloggers (so sorry I can't recall your name - please feel free to edit) opinion! And to end this silly retort, I'm absolutely entitled to my opinion.
@@lisabeck3963 You are of course entitled to your opinion, please forgive me if I made you think otherwise. I merely try to give a different point of view based on math, which i believe is closer to being factually correct. In my view, you can only call one thing better than the other if you actually compare the two on measurable metrics. This is what my equation is aimed at. You present no counter arguments against my arguments. Could you state which incorrect presumptions you think I make? Maybe I could learn something.
@@Gnerko123 Sadly too often people are dishonest when estimating emissions of EVs. Most proponents handwave away the issue of power generation and claim that it will all be provided by solar and wind anyway. Also as recent events shown, EVs have a problem with cold, that doesn't seem to be going away any time soon despite global warming
@@wumi2419 Well yes you have to look at power production emissoins of course, otherwise it's just dishonest. The point is that more often than not, even if you do look at power producoitn emissoins, EV's still come out less environmentally damaging than comparable ICE cars. I often see an argument along the lines of "EV cars pollute, e.g. battery production and power generation. We don't need such batteries for ICE cars, and it doesn't matter whether emissoins are from the tailpipe of the car of from the chimney of the power plant. Thus, EV cars are worse for the environment than ICE cars." The roblem with this, is that it is a quantitative conclusoin (EV pollution > ICE pollution) without a quantitative comparison. This means that such a conclusoin is unfounded. An Alternative argument starts similarly; "EV cars pollute too, so they aren't as green as people make them out to be.". this is a straw man argument, no one is arguing EV cars do not pollute at all. The point is that in most cases, they pollute less than a comparable ICE car, not that EV pollutoin is zero. I agree that EV cars consume more energy in cold conditions, but so do ICE cars (albeit to a lesser extent). Winter fuel mileage for an ICE car is often worse than summer mileage. Furthermore, because the ICE car spends more time in the warmup phase, emissoins are worse as well (not only per mile driven, but also per gallon of fuel consumed). These factors should be taken into account when comparing EV and ICE environemtal damage, but we cannot say a priori without making any quantitative comparison that this is what kills the case for EV's as compared to ICE's.
First off the comments at the beginning were hilarious, also you seriously couldn’t have said anything better. Thank you! I already liked your page now I love it.
Volvo did a study on their EV vs ICE. It is a good look at story of EV vs ICE and the emissions of production and running both. It takes an ICE engine vehicle some time to hit the EV impact.....
You are right on target. I do battery research and implementation in EV's and long ago it became clear BEV's are a great deviation and a stepping stone to some sustainable future but for all the reasons you cite, they are untenable for mass adoption in the near future.
I wonder what would be the lifespan of an EV, once the battery is dead, would it be worth the cost to replace it ? As we know the most green car is the one that is not produced
@@Kabodanki you can assume, that before the battery completely dies the car will be toast anyway. Also it is possible to repair battery modules inside the whole battery, you don't need to replace the whole thing. EVs will outlast ICE cars by a huge margin. From an engine point of view it's basically indestructible. Can't be said for your typical ice.
@@Kabodanki research grid storage of used EV batteries and recycling. There are batteries in development with 1000 cycles. This could last 30-100 years for the average user. Imagine buying your next EV with a new shell for your old battery. How cheap would that be if you kept your battery?
@@jirace if that were in any way plausible within the next 10 years, I'd be completely on board, but you're in la-la land if you think battery technology will suddenly jump like that. Look at history, read a book.
There's another name for EVs which is EEVs and means "Emissions Elsewhere Vehicles". The average EV produces more emissions than the equivalently massed ICE car during production to the point that some research suggests that they need to be driven about 200K kms to just break even in terms of emissions by which time most will need a new battery (which is the greatest part of these extra emissions)!
@@kng128 I've read a report that had academic research behind it.The authors of the report are professionals in the commodities field (G&R) and the title of the report was "Ignoring energy transition realities". BTW, there's no emission free grid! Wind turbines are not emission free themselves. It's not only their emission-intensive production, the construction of wider mountain roads for them to pass and installed, their transportation, maintenance, etc, but also the huge amounts of cement they need for every one of their bases. Then every 20 years or so you need to decommission them and find a way to recycle them in an economically viable way which, at the moment, doesn't seem to exist, hence they bury them (and you need to redo everything from scrap!)! Then there's their intermittency problem. Sun and wind are only available (at best) half the hours of any given day/year. The rest of those hours you need to operate other energy plants to provide the power. The problem with that arrangement is that these power plants don't like to operate intermittently themselves and they emit the most on their start-up procedures which become more frequent when wind/solar are a substantial part of the grid. I don't know what the channel you mentioned did but experts on the field (with "skin in the game") disagree with what you wrote. Maybe you didn't understand the nuances of his video or maybe he's mistaken himself.
@@C_R_O_M________ Thanks for your thorough reply. You can take the name of the channel I mentioned and paste it in the search box if you're so inclined.
@@kng128 I know that channel and I've subbed to it years ago. The people I follow are serious names in the investing domain (which is also my job) and their reports must be really detailed and thorough before publication (I get a newsletter from them). Their sources too. If they don't deliver reliable reports they lose customers and their business will eventually perish. Everything they've said has been so far pretty accurate. Even their predictions (which is one of the hardest things to risk publishing).
There’s a reason why most EV owners also own an ICE car. EVs absolutely have their place. Unfortunately, that place is not in the ownership of your average driver.
Nah, EV’s are already the better choice for the average driver. It’s just that the average driver thinks “30 years ago my family did a cross country road trip, so all of my cars need to do that in case I want to do that again” and then proceed to drive 40 miles a day.
I watched this video while cleaning my bike. But speaking of cars, I cut my fuel consumption by half with a hybrid car, and it would be nice if everyone did the same instead of buying EVs
Great video. Totally agree with the points brought up. No benefits from the EVs other than "moving the problem" to where the decision makers do not see it
I have watched all of your videos. Your content is highly valuable to me as a mechanic and I appreciate it very much. I recommend it to all new mechanics. Your way of explaining things is precise and easy to understand. The ICE is definately not dead! THANK YOU D4A!
having all our electricity production with around 20% renewable, the best we can do with electrifying EVERYTHING (including airplanes and cargo ships) is a 20% reduction in emissions. Sounds like absolutely pointless, and disasterous considering the infrastructure required to pull this off
Thank you. Geeeez!! Finally someone lays out what I've been saying everytime people think electric cars are just going to make gas card obsolete tomorrow.. i mean what happens when the power grid goes down and you can't recharge your car? And the apt arguement is PERFECT aspect of why it'll never happen. Only people who live in houses or few places with a garage can possibly expect to "charge at home"
Znao sam da si naš "balkanac" haha! Naglasak, faca... Skontao sam sad po tablicama. Gledam ponekad videje, kvalitetan content naravno. Anyway, on to the topic... I agree with most what you've said here. I've worked at Rimac Automobili (yes, that Rimac) for 4 years. During that time I've had a "sneak peek" in various "behind the scenes" EV stuff. Since 2015 I'm saying that EVs are behind the corner, and that it's closer than most of people think. At the time, there wasn't as nearly as much EVs around as today so it seemed absurd to most of people. However, as the time goes by, one thing that just doesn't seem to get any progress is the infrastructure. Not even close to pace at which EVs themselves are progressing. I still think it's "around the corner" but I'm afraid what's going to happen is that "they" (governments, lobbies) will forcefully push it without cars and infrastructure maturing enough. I'm a petrolhead by default. Building and wrenching on engines since I was like 9, 2 strokes, 4 strokes, cars and motorcycles. I can appraciete and enjoy both EVs and ICE for what they are. In ideal scenario, I hope transition will be smooth and uncomplete, keeping both on the roads rather than forcefully ceasing out ICEs. This will be possible if EVs become a "better and practical solution" for "normal folks" and people switch voluntarily. Otherwise, I'm affraid that ICE vehicles will be forced out of the system, one way or another. I live in Tokyo and even here, the infrastructure is non existent. Not to mention for e-bikes. Last year I've built myself a custom e-bike and I can't stop praising this thing. The torque, acceleration, the silence, the fun, the practicality.... It's a perfect vehicle for Tokyo, feels almost as if I'm using a cheat code (well, technically this kind of bike is illegal as f.ck here but let's not focus on the details :p). I did 4500km on it last year and I did about 3000km this year so far and despite of how awesome it is, I do have to "admit defeat" and say that... Technology just hasn't caught up quite yet. Battery anxiety is always there. I commute on it about 30-50km one way (charge at work, go back) and while it works great for that scenario, problem is when I want to go further away in one go and / or free roam. While I could stretch battery to about 80km, as we all know, full discharge and charge is not good for the battery. That kind of usage will significantly reduce lifespan of the battery and that range still isn't enough for some of the routes that I want to do anyway. I'm using pretty much the biggest cells there is (35E, 3500mAh) so the only way to increase capacity would be to add more cells = more weight = defeats the whole puropose of such bicycle. Not to mention already lack od space. As I've already mentioned, the charging infrastructure is non existent. Yes, most of bicycles here are electric, but those are very low powered bikes with low capacity and most of people just use them for ride to the station,1-2km tops and charge at home. I'm always scanning for power outlets around and people must think I'm looking to plant a bomb or something lol (being foreigner doesn't help either). Never found anything but even if there was option to charge, charging takes waaaay too long to be practical in this scenario. And that's while I'm already charging with maximum current this cell can safely take. I can sneak in McDonalds or family restaurants and charge, but I have to sit for hours then and "nanny" the battery while it's charging. So long way to go even for e-bikes which make way more sense than electric cars with current technology. Another misconception is that once you get a electric car, you will spend 0 money on charging it. If you actually look, most charging stations are paid, either with subscription or otherwise. Occasional free spots are always taken, even now when there is not that many EVs around. Tesla's V3 supercharger charges with up to 250KW. Do people understand how much power that is?? Who will give you that much power for free? Not to mention in times when everyone will be using EVs and there is no other option. Charging will be nothing cheaper than filling up a decent sized tank I assume. Then special EV electricity taxes or who knows what they will come up with... I also live in a bulding and as shown in the video, there would be absolutely no way for me to charge a electric car at home. In fact, my bicycle would be problem as well if the battery was not removable. Summers are pretty brutal in Tokyo, and even now they are constantly asking people to stop using A/C in peak hours due to power shortage. Can you imagine if everyone also had electric cars??
It amazes me that EV people really think buying and producing EVEN MORE cars will solve anything. Keeping older cars running for longer, and thus maybe getting a new car only half as frequent as people currently do, is what can actually make a difference. Totally my reason for buying an '87 Starlet, definitely not just because I liked it lol 😬
@@JacobMueller 1 thing that people always seem to forget about with EVs, though, is the weight and its impact on the roads themselves. A 2 tonne tesla will put way more wear on the road than a 1.3 tonne 'regular' car. Also, older cars are lighter than modern cars, and EVs are even heavier than regular modern cars
@@JacobMueller and the EE video was sponsored by an EV company, hardly unbiased and factual when you cherry pick stats given to you by a company with everything to gain
@Titanium Rain It was still cherry picked information. It would be nice to actually see 2 experts with different opinions discuss it. But you can't support ICE cars now or you'll lose all your funding.
The best way to eliminate those emissions would be replacing most of that base load with nuclear. But many of the same people saying EVs are the future refuse to allow nuclear.
On top of that what do you do with the highly toxic and extremely radioactive waste right now all we do is put it in the ground letting it contaminate the surrounding area and making it uninhabitable for us and many other species. Nuclear may be "clean" but it's byproduct is far from that. Our tech may have reached a point where it is mostly safe but computers fail,sensors fail and redundancies fail and when all those fail you no longer have a "safe" or clean power system. The problem with technology and more so modern technology is it will fail at some point and things nowadays are made to be replaced instead of making something that will last a long time
@@isaias0316 you are correct I cannot find any recent events evolving contamination however its not like anyone has ever dug a bor hole next to a deep underground storage facility and took any readings either. I guess I should have put into simpler terms for everyone... radiation is bad M'kay
@@Skaadi89 Yes, you are correct, radiation itself is bad, just like carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, lithium mining and many other things. And that's why nuclear waste is carefully sealed in containers and then buried in special sites, not just dumped into the nearest creek. I'll leave some videos on the subject so you can get a clearer picture of the subject. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PB7HT3BZLzM.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OgMXjAQ5q14.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aoy_WJ3mE50.html
Great video. Our family has switched to EVs (two of them), but we've also added 20MW of annual solar generation to our roof. One trend I don't like here in the US is that everyone wants larger and less efficient vehicles, which is bad no matter how you fuel them. I try to bike or ride an electric scooter when I can, but I suspect that very few people are willing to change their lifestyle.
But, he did not even touch on the idea of self generation of power for an EV, which is the obvious solution. - And not so simple just to blame the consumer, they are influenced by the marketing. Obviously, not 'everyone' wants larger and less efficient vehicles, - you dont.
my 1969 Riviera with 646Cubic Inches (8.6 liters give or take) using a Carburetor gets 22MPG, its a 2 door coupe bumper to bumper with a 2004 Suburban, how is that inefficient ? hardly any new cars I my friends drive are still in the 16-20 range, WITH ALL THAT TECHNOLOGY...... thanks for the laugh at your expense! also, it recycled, so that goes towards the efficiency and recycling part. you bought a new one. something to be said for that..
@@moonants It's only the obvious solution for the fuel (which is a big issue, but is by no means the only issue with EVs). Even then, it's not so obvious a solution. Why? Because where do the ingredients for solar panels come from? Those ingredients come from mines that create literal tons of pollution (toxic metals, emissions, polluting water sources) and are usually based off worker exploitation (think African child workers). Let's say that we have ultra-efficient and ethically sourced mining procedures (possibly by significantly increasing the cost of products to account for living wages and hazard containment). We keep producing vehicles but the supply of resources has to eventually run out. Where do we mine after the metals and other materials run out? We need good recycling programs for EV-specific and renewable materials (batteries, solar panels) instead of throwing away the vehicles, which is often much cheaper than disassembly and sorting. Think of house construction where it's easier and cheaper to throw away or burn wood from a demolished house than to disassemble and repurpose (recycle) the wood. Higher prices from high demand with low supply could drive stronger recycling efforts and make recycling financially worthwhile, but currently only copper seems to be in demand with relatively low supply.
Awesome video. And thank you for addressing this issue. I've noticed in the last few years this "war" between EV enthusiasts and ICE enthusiasts. Every single video or article on some new car with ICE, there will be some EV bro talking shit... the comments you posted showed exactly how insufferable these people are sometimes.
@@viriatvsoflvsitania5422 He has a right to his opinion and so do you. He thinks people that are obsessed with petrol cars and hate on fully electric cars are insufferable while you think people obsessed with fully electric cars and hate on petrol cars are insufferable. Your opinions are literally just the opposite. You're not any more correct just because you clicked on a video agreeing with you.
@@williammeek4078 quote ''insufferable ones are the petrol heads that don't care about their right to cause problems for other people?'' What about the EV capitalist push to sell us all EV's causing deaths daily in the mining of cobalt and lithium, and the ever expanding search for more of each resource causing destruction of nature and killing habitat? There's always an alternative argument! Have you looked into the predicted expected issues with road surface and tyre wear if all vehicles become stupidly heavy EV's? I almost guarantee you've never even considered it!! Well, guess what asphalt, otherwise known as bitumen, is? A form of hardened petroleum! Ironic! I won't even start on the weight and torque of EV's and associated tyre wear thus rubber demand. Did you not listen to anything said in the video? Electric is only the answer when it's 100% green derived, and that's decades away if even possible, and even then, to actually work we need drastic improvements in battery tech to get close to convenient!
19:11 Totally agree, here in my country since the gas price skyrocket people are non stop arguing in "the price are to high, i cannot go to work at this rate" but these same people take theire car to go to the opposite side of the country on hollydays... And all of the sudden gas price are not a factor in their choice for this summer holidays. People are just selfish, and only have argument when they want for the subject they want. I always like to point out why those person don't take the train (EV) to go to their destination "there is to much people in the train i dont like this"... Yeah, like if the highways in summer time are not jamming with car, nether the gas stations.
Excellent video as always. I would like to play devil's advocate and address some of your points: - There are significant benefits to charging EVs on the grid - particularly when there is some renewable energy. At times, more energy in generated than necessary (solar energy at midday for example). This already occurs regularly in places with some renewable power. Intelligent EV Chargers would be able to prioritise charging at these times to essentially get 'free' electricity. This will only become more and more common with wider adoption. - As well as the global climate, we do have microclimates in cities. Poor air quality from the dense traffic can create health issues and increase medical costs. Even if EVs don't reduce global CO2, their adoption can improve air quality in these areas. - I think your comments about charging time are irrelevant for most people. Fast Chargers may be necessary for long journeys that require more than one charge, but many EV owners can install a lower-current charger right into their house. This then charges while they're not using the vehicle so the time does not impact them. Furthermore, this does not require as much infrastructure investment as separate charging stations. - Using global figures for energy sources is misleading. If you consider the EU / US on their own, renewable+nuclear (as a percentage of total usage) have increased by 30% in the last 50 years. The reason for the consistently high usage of fossil fuels is India/China with their enormous populations starting to consume as much per person as western countries. (So they build many cheap new fossil fuel power plants). This does mean that driving an EV in the West emits significantly less CO2 than a petrol car per km. Finally, I would like to address your point at the end: yes, the problem is us. However, I think that writing off technology means we have already lost. As you rightfully point out, nobody really wants to make meaningful sacrifices. Instead people point at the cost of things that other people care about. There is plenty of coal and oil still to burn so the immediate cost to people is unlikely to increase enough to stop us doing significant damage. As for my own opinion, I think synthetic fuels are probably going to be most important. EVs can definitely benefit in countries with a lot of renewable generation but their production is damaging. Synthetics at least allow us to make use of existing vehicles and infrastructure. The other important thing is shifting to newer and smaller vehicles. While ICEs are here to stay, SUVs, pickups etc need not. (Unfortunately, because I can really understand the appeal.) The same is true for very old cars. Saving a classic to daily drive may let you convince yourself that you're doing good but you'd have been much better saving a used car from the early 2000s that nobody cares about.
Internal combustion engines still have several decades before they’re even close to being in danger of dying. Not only are electric vehicles still more expensive to produce but they don’t last as long and the power infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging isn’t here yet and likely won’t be for several decades. People may argue that you can just install more chargers but where is that electricity going to come from? The power grids of the world aren’t up to the task of supplying power to charge nearly half a city full of electric cars overnight, we’re already running pretty high on our power grid utilization and there just isn’t enough power available to make an electric future happen overnight.
I've driven a Tesla and I must say, it's probably my favorite car for sitting in stop and go traffic. but the steering feels... too easy. there is zero steering feedback and the car weighs almost 2 tons, plus it took me like 30 minutes to figure out how to adjust the damn mirrors. yeah sure, it's fast in a straight line... what else? it feels like it has no personality at all, like a soul-less business man. in going for speed and automation, something was lost along the way. however, most modern cars are like this too. something just doesn't feel quite right about anything made for mass consumerism in the last 10 years. they seem... fragile? restrained? can't think of the word there was once a golden age for cars, and sad to say but it's over. we will never have that again.
My newest car is from '92, and has ABS, is passively very safe, is fast and is beautiful. I think a new Tesla could also tick off the fast and safe parts, but boy, what a soulless crapheap of ugly design..
What you call the golden age of cars was when they spewed out indiscriminate amounts of NoX, SO2, particulates and made inefficient use of fuel. They are thankfully leaving the roads rapidly. Here in France there are now more diesel cars being scrapped than new ones being bought. Diesel was over 50% of all cars on the roads, this is now falling by over half a million a year. Good riddance!
Teslas are nothing what your comment makes it be like. They are badly made, cheaply put together units. People have also found duct tape in their cars.
@@1andtheOnly ‘people have found duct take in their cars’....please provide evidence of which people, and where they found the duct tape rather than just your say, otherwise your comment is worthless. Let me give you some facts, every Tesla, S, X, Y and 3 when tested by safety authorities in the USA and Europe have found them to be the safest cars in their class...and remember you are up against Mercedes, BMW and Volvo in there. The single casting techniques will make future Teslas even safer...not to mention the fact that Tesla have far and away the best software of any competitor with more collision avoidance technology than their competitors.
Well done. I will also add some information, I live in a coal mining region, one of the largest coal producing regions on the planet, and 90% (or more) of our coal is coking coal, which means it’s not used for power generation but instead used for making steel. With a recent shift in politics in our region, they want to reduce and completely eliminate coal production, with clean, renewable electricity sources, but our coal isn’t even used for that, so by closing our coal mines, it will only put people out of jobs, increase the cost of steel, and make another country with high quality coking coal richer. It will not reduce greenhouse gasses at all. Here is a fact: you cannot make steel without coal... so if you ban coal mining, what are you going to use to make cars, buildings, bridges, wind turbines, etc. etc. from?
I had not thought of metalurgical coal, but it can't be replaced. I once wanted to build a mini iron melting furnace but there were no sellers of coke within a thousand miles.
@@timothykeith1367 yeah it’s problematic to get gold of here, and we mine millions or tonnes per year. You can buy it by the tonne, but it comes at a premium.
There is also the plain fact that much of the developing world still can't generate enough electricity to cover everyday requirements - so electrifying all light and heavy vehicles is decades away.
Back when I took statistics we had two text books. One was the usual stats book and the other was a small paperback titled "How to Lie with Statistics". The teacher was one of the best I ever had.
Firstly, a very well produced video. It's not an easy task to stand on the side that you are, so huge respect from that! A The main problem you addressed in the video is indeed how an individual is transported from A to B. One solution could be electrification of bicycles. I'm not saying it's for everyone, but for many people it could be a very reasonable option. Electirc bikes are realtively cheap, easy to maintain, fast to charge with smaller batteries and they consume very little energy. I have turned my mountain bike into a an elctric one which cost me about 1000 euros with 800 Wh battery pack. With that I can easily travel more than my daily needs (i can travel about 100 km with one charge when speed limit set to 35 km/h). When it comes to carrying groceries or children, there are plenty of different cargo bikes or bags you can attach to your bike. And the bonus with this is the bit of exerciese you get on every run. If you want to take a longer trip or it's bad weather, you can use public transport or rent a car, not that big of a deal.
One thing I wish you had brought up is that the average weight of electric cars would cause HUGE amounts of wear on our roads. It's not trivial. On top of charging infrastructure, the bigger issue is rebuilding our roads deep and strong enough to handle millions of vehicles that weigh 3-4 tons. Building roads is WAY more expensive than building out charging infrastructure. We really, really need to call more attention to the road situation! Pure electric is good for people with a garage and who drive a lot, and everyone in that class WILL buy such a vehicle. Plug-in hybrids with small batteries would be better for small communities full of low-mileage drivers who can charge their cars at work or with a normal, low-current wall outlet. If enough millions of these cars move to electric, then ICE engines won't be a "problem" anymore, so there's no need to ban them, and we car enthusiasts can still have our low-volume toys. Everybody wins! But, ah, that requires people to be reasonable. It's way easier to continue the virtue-signaling bandwagon and demand that ICEs be banned, rather than prioritize how big the problems are and concentrate on real solutions.
I really like your way of thinking! Many years ago I decided to drive smaller vehicles including a Caravan instead of a truck for my business(better on gas). I moved to the country in Quebec where rivers create most of the electricity(cheap Hydro). The drawback is that I do way more mileage to get anywhere. So there are no easy solutions. Now if I lived in the city I'd own an electric bicycle for commuting along with a car for longer trips.
I absolutely love your content. My son is a little engineer, too, and we love watching your videos together. I agree that ICE is LONG from dead. EVs have fundamental shortcomings, and until we figure out nuclear fusion and power dense batteries that don’t require dirty mining, there will be no macro advantage to EVs. Doesn’t matter though. Your channel is all about engineering, and you are one of the absolute best at communicating engineering concepts in a concise and entertaining way. You make me wish I was a mechanical engineer rather than a civil engineer. Keep doing what you’re doing.
Wonderful video! Very informative and well explained as always sir. I cringe everytime I see an EV with 0 emissions/green whatever sticker on it, shame on them honestly! EVs have their strenghts, mainly low maintenance and performance but they are not greener or convenient.
@@frbe0101 No, the matter isn't oil vs electric. There is the potential of turning towards biofuel. I recently got to know E100 can also be made of biowaste, so it does not have to "compete with food". Now here is hoping D4A will be interested in making a video about the E100 option (a full presentation of the good and bad consequences of a potential transition towards that, as well as how likely this transition is to happen within a reasonable amount of time).
@@Lina_Antoniou The inefficiency of biofuels means they would require huge amounts of arable land to replace a significant fraction of our fossil fuel usage. The efficiency of sunlight to biomass, in the field is typically 1%, then biomass to ethanol is less than 50% efficiency, then ethanol to wheel motion through an internal combustion engine in 15-25%. Sunlight to electricity is typically 15-25% efficiency via photovoltaics, then >90% efficiency through an electric grid, then >70% efficiency charging, discharging and moving an electric car. That is 0.1% total efficiency for ethanol verse over 10% total efficiency for electric. That is over two orders of magnitude difference in total efficiency, we could run over 100 electric cars using the same amount of sunlight for 1 biofuel car. Now I’m all for cellulose to ethanol and algae fuel, which could be several times more efficient then grain ethanol, not compete with food production and not even need arable land, but even then its only going to be able to replace a small fraction of our fossil fuel use, like if we replaced all jet fuel with algea based jet fuel, congrats that is 3% of oil usage.
@@frbe0101 Ethanol is much more efficient than 25% if the engine is tuned for it. Those low numbers are only a result of using it in the wrong engines. Whatever consumption numbers an engine may hit, it is impossible to make 1000+BHP at 25% efficiency from a 5-litre displacement. Ethanol has some key advantages over other fuels. These advantages are so far used for making huge amounts of power, but are you sure you can deny they can be used for efficiency?
One of the best videos I've seen that shows the reality of EV's, as many of you may know from a previous video made by Driving 4 answers, our company is developing a high performance IC engine for the marine outboard industry. I have seen hundreds of these anti IC engine comments myself and they are all based on fiction and not facts as stated in this video. To put things in perspective, it takes about 20,000 pounds of batteries to replace a simple 100 gallon fuel tank for a 300 HP outboard engine. Now imagine the weight to power a high performance boat, truck or commercial airliners. IC engines are here to stay and efficiency is where it is at.
Thank you thank you,for explaining well the reality of where the problem really is. Human behavior cannot be solved by technology. I like electric cars and ice cars. At 65 years old and over 90 cars I have owned since 14 years old, I’ve learned that when buying a car the cost of ownership not just the sticker or mileage is the real math. It’s marketing at its worst to say tailpipe emissions are zero when there are more emissions from the manufacturing of electric cars than petroleum cars. With A little cursory reading and research you can learn about the costs of manufacturing any car from cradle to grave. They are astronomically high, if you consider several thousand gallons of water, plastics ,mining , steel etc etc could go on and on. The way to drastically reduce pollution and environmental impacts and costs are to maintain a economical car and buy used cars to eliminate the costs of manufacturing. Or to convert some existing cars to electric. The public is being sold this just like ethanol was. Have you looked into cost/benefit for wind and solar? Very disappointing. did you know solar panels use coal and metals , and have maybe 15 year life span? I imagine poor countries will be stuck with recycling those materials at the cost of environment and their health. Some green activists are looking anew at MODERN nuclear power as its renewable energy with minimal impact (comparatively speaking ). But again the cost of mining and manufacture will still be there. Before we drink the “coolaid “ read the ingredients and where it came from, remember ToTo ? The dog in wizard of oz? Look behind the curtain not at the image being projected. Thanks
When the overall public realization of the toxicity of battery recyclement really starts to sink in... Hydrogen as the majority and electric for a limited certain vehicles is the ONLY sustainable future.
Batteries have always been the tech that lags behind. Just look at mobile phones. I remember 15 years ago we were promised batteries that would fit on a pin head and output enough power to run a phone (it was a tiny engine of some kind). And we can't even keep our relatively low-power, heavy phones charged for more than a day. Batteries always hold us back. Why? Mass. They need to be big and heavy to work effectively. I reckon, in 100 years, batteries will still be lagging behind, but we would have perfected mass energy transfer through air, so they will be pretty much obsolete. Batteries are not the future. They already seem old and a (literal) massive hindrance.
Great video. I'm now subscribing. A couple of additional items to mention, child exploration used in some of the mining. And the global energy crisis. I live in California, we've been in a crisis since I was born in 1975. Now, we are in an extreme drought, guess how much electricity a hydroelectric Dam with no water makes. And now with global supply being at an all time low, there aren't available parts for new solar Fields, or for repairs on existing ones. A return to nature would be a welcome change to all this.
I realize that I'm about a year late with this comment, but... The charging topic: Driving the car to almost 0% battery and then requiring to be able to charge back up to 100% quickly is not going to work most of the time. Plug in whenever you can, keep the battery in a range of 40-80% state of charge, charge over night, charge during work, charge at the shops. There's no need to wait until the battery is dangerously low before starting to charge, and there's no need to "refill" it to 100% every time. Being able to charge at home is of course the sweetest option, which btw is not exclusive to homeowners. There are also apartment building which have installed chargers at each parking spot (including load management so the lights don't go out in the apartments when everyone plugs the car in). I have a measly single phase 230 V 16 Ampere socket (with its own dedicated fuse) from which I can charge with 3 kW - and surprisingly that's enough! When the car sitting around over night, I don't care if it recharges in 10 minutes, 1 hour or 10 hours. The next morning it has recharged more than enough range to get me through the day, and that's all that matters. Apart from that I have also used my fair share of public chargers - luckily there is one pretty close to my apartment. I could just drive there, drop the car off and walk back home in a few minutes. Then spend a few hours at home and pick it up once it has reached the desired state of charge. Sure not 100% convenient, but entirely doable. There's also charging available at work (again the car just sits around for 8-9 hours, so it does not matter that much how fast the charging is), as well as at quite a few shops these days. The worst part about public chargers is probably the multitude of different apps and accounts that you have to manage in order to avoid paying ridiculous roaming fees if you use charger A with the app of company B. The energy production topic: I suppose the emissions created by additional power plants depend heavily on the type of power plant. Where I live electricity is mostly created via hydro- and nuclear power (it's a quite mountainous country with lots of elevated lakes and big rivers). Solar and wind is coming into the mix as well, albeit slowly (because most people think that these things spoil the countryside in case of wind power and appearance of buildings in case of solar). With such an energy mix, an EV is probably producing fewer emissions. And it's also important where these emissions are produced. Even if you have a coal power plant somewhere that makes all the electricity, at least the pollution that it makes is not going to be in the city where the EVs are driving. ICE cars on the other hand create the pollution exactly where they are being driven. Finally - and I very much acknowledge that this is a very personal thing - the number of loud noisy "look at me" ICE cars and motorbikes seems to have exploded in recent years. This is completely unnecessary noise pollution which would not be a topic at all with EVs. I really don't see the point of someone screaming through town at midnight with the engine at the redline, waking up dozens of people along the way, just so that this one person can enjoy the "nice" sound of their car or bike.
There are no behavioral work a rounds to the problems talked about in the video, your long video can be summed up as follows. if you were silly enough to fall for the electric car big lie do this to cope. I admire your goals in owning a ev but you should re-watch the video and give it more consideration.Well, I did miss one one behavioral fix the author did mention and that is we should all have more respect for our bodies and walk a lot more. Your opinion does. indeed, mean a lot to me and I would also like to see a cleaner happier world.
@@christiandisch8147 No slight intended I know you are a smart guy and you would like to see people conserve and be rational. There is data that supports the notion that electric vehicles are a net energy loss for what we get. What drives most of the narrative is that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and we are saving the world by not breathing, again there is a mountain of evidence this is not true. You are right behavior is important, just not were you lined it out. We need to change our behavior in what we are willing to believe from our governments and business leaders. What would make electric vehicles a fine solution would be nuclear but nuclear has been consistently slandered by the oil companies for years as the oil execs would like to keep their jobs. It is all a very convoluted question and people are very political and tribal. As far as my "data" on ev energy use I would refer you to this excellent video. I have had biology in both high school and college and to just recently no one called carbon dioxide a pollutant, indeed, there would be little life on earth with out it. So how much should we have? There really is two sides to this story and government and business own the media so most of us have just heard one side. I would much rather see us make things out of oil,coal and gas than burn it and I believe there are strong use cases for evs and I firmly know none of this is "settled science".
@@perrydickerson9055 Perhaps assuming that everyone buys an EV for the environment is over-generalizing the situation? I decided to go with my particular choice of EV because (to me) it's a fun car to drive with insane acceleration, good cornering and almost no noise. To me it just felt like a step up from any noisy vibrating shouty combustion engine car, but this is personal preference and I really appreciate the quietness and refinement of an electric motor (or two, in my case) and the massive simplification that comes along with it. Btw my EV was bought second hand with plenty of kilometers on the clock, and I'm planning to keep it for a long long time. I did however *not* purchase an EV because someone told me it's green or eco or whatever, and I am truly surprised by the amount of advertising that seems to focus heavily on that aspect in other countries. We don't get really get that around here, and neither is the government pushing EVs in any way, for instance there are no incentives from the government with regards to tax reductions or discounts when purchasing a new EV. People around here buy EVs because they *want* to buy EVs, not because someone tells them to or because they would get exempt from the road tax or get a massive discount on the purchase price. Same thing for the charging infrastructure - the government seems to do fairly little (to none) here. Instead, it's businesses and companies that are taking it upon themselves to install and maintain public chargers. And despite this general lack of support from the government, a dense charging network has been created and lots of EVs are on the road. Last year every fifth new car registered was battery-electric, and you generally see more and more of them on the road.
@@christiandisch8147 I hear you and know a guy that has a Tesla that he loves for the many reasons that you stated. I have a suburban that has 44 gallon gas tank that gets me 600 miles down the road and takes about 10 minutes to fill up. Parts, tires and insurance for it are dirt cheap and I haul stuff with it here in Arizona were I live. It meets my needs and I am sure you chose your vehicle to meet yours. However I don't think every one should own one. I ques I am old and cynical and see a dark back story to all of this stuff. I am however a veteran of the telecommunications and IT industry and a business owner and I know how to figure out the total cost of ownership for a vehicle and a ev is to costly for me. There will be a hidden cost for all of us as they are added to grid as the laws of supply and demand will kick in and electricity for your house will go up. When I grew up in Phoenix you could not see down to the end of the street because of the smog. The pollution hurt me at a personal level because I had asthma. The automotive industry would have never fixed that problem on their own, in my country the ev push is not to clean the air, it is for political talking points and round tripping subsidy money back to political parties. Electric vehicles should stand on their own merits many of witch you mentioned. I am also very interested in small nuclear reactors built close to loads, that would make a perfect marriage with ev ownership. There is a lot of electricity lost in long power lines close in power would be much more thri fty. Keep a open mind, look at both sides of the story and enjoy your ev.
I really hate that everyone is pushing for full electric when we have the perfect middle ground for the transition, giving the world the time to build up the infrastructure needed: hybrids Also note that everyone would charge their Evs at night which is usually the low consumption time. Giving little to no break to the whole grid
