Give me a counter argument to this article. Please!

[Ukmgranger]

Hi all,

Just read this article from the Guardian, and I'm certain that this will be cited by colleagues / friends etc that know I have a Tesla coming.
I'll be honest, I like that the Tesla has great eco credentials, but I'm getting one for the fact that's an awesome bit of kit, and as such, probably don't know as much about the green side as many on here.

Is this article a load of tosh? Give me a comeback please!

Are electric vehicles really so climate friendly?

 

[Glan gluaisne]

Someone needs to do some homework and look at the CO2 emissions from the grid. The UK grid has significantly reduced CO2 emissions in recent years, so it now runs at around 208 tonnes of CO2 per GWh of total generation.

Putting that into context, assuming an EV uses around 250 Wh/mile, then that equates to a CO2 emission figure of around 52g/mile, or about 32.5g/km.

Whilst not zero, it's not at all bad, and shows that the Guardian just haven't bothered to fact check their source before assuming it applied to the UK as well (albeit by inference). Also worth noting that CO2 isn't the only issue. Perhaps the most important concern with ICE vehicles are the other emissions, from gases like nitrogen oxides to harmful combustion particulates.

 

[Banksy888]

Some points immediately come to mind.

• Zero emissions in our towns and cities is something we should all desire for health and a pleasant living environment.
  
• Not all electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels. Every year we move closer to more renewable sources is a win for electric vehicles. It won't be long before that article needs a rewrite.
  
• By confining greenhouse emissions to generation sites, we enable meaningful schemes to capture those emissions at scale before they enter the atmosphere.

 

[MaDProFF]

In layman's terms, it all depends I guess on where the power plant is, and how much is coming from wind farms etc.

Long term though there will be far more energy produced via solar and wind, water so Ev's will be much cleaner.

They also forget how much power is required to get oil out of the ground, transport it, and then moving rigs building rigs, list is endless for oil

 

[Glan gluaisne]

If anyone wants to fact check the crap from the Guardian, then the data for UK electricity generation is easy to access: Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES): electricity

I used that as the source for the data above, specifically the last whole year data for total CO2 emission from the UK grid (from all sources of generation) which was the provisional 2018 figure of 208 tonnes CO2 per GWh.

The UK grid has been becoming less CO2 intensive over recent years, for example for 2016 the figure was 268 tonnes CO2/GWh and for 2017 the figure was 227 tonnes CO2/GWh. The recent year-on-year reduction has been around 10% to 15%.

Worth noting that Germany is worse by a fair bit, as they still burn oil for generation (we no longer run any oil fired power stations) and they also burn a lot of coal (we go for days without firing up our remaining coal-fired power stations). If anyone wants to see what the split of generation is at any time, this site gives a good display: GB Fuel type power generation production

 

[MrAliG]

This work was widely derided at the time and I cannot believe that The Gurdian have reported it today.

The actuall story contains virtually no figures to back it up and German emissions have no relevance to UK buyers of electric cars.

UK CO2 per kWh of generated electricity has collapsed. It was 516 in 2012, 275 in 2016 and appears to have been one 180 in 2018.

Germany appears to have been 560 in 2016, France was only 58.

The vast majority of new electricity production nowadays is renewable and 0 carbon. Thus the amount of CO2 being produced continues to fall. Germany raised their levels by stopping nuclear generation and now have to adjust back down.

This report when it was produced knew fine that using Germany was a gross misrepresentation of what would happen in many other countries. So in the UK and electric car will produce less than half the CO2 of an electric car in Germany.

There are plenty of reports which show that from end to end electric cars produce less CO2 as well as the other benefits of less local pollution, particulates etc and being nicer to drive.

The assertion that EV batteries do not last 180,000km is also a misrepresentation. Many Teslas have already outlasted this. Indeed I would expect the electrics and the car in general to give out before the battery. The battery of course can also be recycled.

You can further reduce the CO2 Intensity of charging an electric car by putting solar panels on your house.

I have a Model X it does an equivalent of around 100 MPG. A car of comparable size and performance would be a V8 Supercharged Rnage Rover, they achieve around 14MPG in the real world. Often people seem to also not compare like with like so they will say a Tesla has higher emissions than a diesel Golf or some such, for a Model 3 the right comparison would be a BMW 340i.

 

[Mr Miserable]

It may be true, it may be not, but the article is more about the state of the German power industry. It takes a while to build a power station - even longer if it is in the UK it seems, and so until these are all decomissioned there will always be the opportunity to write articles like this. In the UK, we have reduced dependence on coal fired stations but as the article states we still have to fire them up on still winter days and nights. This morning, I note that coal fired power is providing 6% of power to the UK grid. Renewables are providing 23%. Of that figure solar is a measly 1%. During this last summer we went for weeks without lighting up the coal fired stations.
It will take time to get rid of the coal fired stations, then the push will be to phase out the gas fired ones which will take even longer.

It's perhaps worthy of note that the aim of the Tesla Gigafactory in Nevada which produces the batteries is to be 100% solar powered. So it is possible.
Nevertheless in 20 years or even 50 years time a professor in Germany will still find an issue to earn £150 from.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

Germany's really big problem is that they made a political decision to have no nuclear generation in future, and have instead been using mainly a combination of oil, gas and coal generation. The use of coal made economic sense to them, but has been pretty disastrous for their emissions from generation.

On the other hand, France went the other way, with much of their generation being nuclear, so they have a particularly low emissions grid.

We've been investing heavily in wind generation for the past few years, and that shows in the rapid decrease in emissions for electricity generation over recent years.

 

[T.F.S.]

Well I normally say like them I couldn’t give a crap about abusing our environment with a car that produces obnoxious fumes that is killing people and also I would gladly run my car on liquified kittens if it made it 0.2 seconds faster to 60.

 

[vitesse]

If anyone wants to fact check the crap from the Guardian, then the data for UK electricity generation is easy to access: Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES): electricity

I used that as the source for the data above, specifically the last whole year data for total CO2 emission from the UK grid (from all sources of generation) which was the provisional 2018 figure of 208 tonnes CO2 per GWh.

The UK grid has been becoming less CO2 intensive over recent years, for example for 2016 the figure was 268 tonnes CO2/GWh and for 2017 the figure was 227 tonnes CO2/GWh. The recent year-on-year reduction has been around 10% to 15%.

Worth noting that Germany is worse by a fair bit, as they still burn oil for generation (we no longer run any oil fired power stations) and they also burn a lot of coal (we go for days without firing up our remaining coal-fired power stations). If anyone wants to see what the split of generation is at any time, this site gives a good display: GB Fuel type power generation production

Yup - this is because they Greens forced the German government to abandon nuclear after the Japanese Fukushima disaster, a situation that could never happen to German nuclear power plants. A case of let's help the planet by deliberately making it much dirtier

 

[davidmc]

Its odd that all these articles base emissions off a tail pipe on an ICE and the co2 emissions for an EV via a Power Station etc.

I think the guys that write these articles do not get the point. The Main point is that BEV’s do NOT omit tail pipe emissions, this means Cleaner air “IN” villages/towns/cities etc and the feeling my 5 year old child can stand behind my vehicle if crossing a road and knowing he wont have smoked 20 fags a day.

Looking at this article they seems to assume that the EV car are built differently to other ICE cars (batteries aside). “All” cars are built using similar raw materials - no getting away from that, and these vehicles that extract these materials do at the moment use large volumes of fuel. This can change to being extracted via cleaner/clean vehicles. The only difference is in the large battery pack below for an EV and the large engine in the ICE. Everything else is the same.

Recycling of EV batteries will happen when price drops (through demand/supply) and easier ways to recycle these materials become available.

Basing CO2 emissions that come “off” an ICE vs BEVS should be something like this:

Electricity that is produced for all usable energy below via - Coal/Gas/Oil/Nuclear/Solar/Wind/Tidal/Others I cannot think off!

ICE:

1. Extraction of oil (Huge amounts of electricity/fuel to do this)
2. Refining/cleaning oil (Huge amounts of electricity to do this)
3. Shipping of oil (Large shipping tankers)
4. Further refining of oil into diesel/unleaded (Huge amounts of electricity to do this)
5. Shipping of fuels to stations (via lorry tankers)
6. Petrol Stations use power to run and pump fuels into car
7. Car then produces more CO2 via tail pipes burning this fuel being very inefficient. (This is usually the figure these articles base it on and not the list above!)

BEV:

1. Electricity produced via one on the list above
2. Shipped via cables to charging unit
3. Car uses this to move

Don’t forget that your electricity can be from a variety of different sources and can be as green or dirty as you want. ICE still burns diesel/petrol and there is no change there, what ever kind of way you get it to the car.

Use the stats below (via link) and state that your car today is running on 15% wind, 5% Coal, 18% Nuclear, 45% Gas, 0.5% Hydro, 7.5% Biomass, 1% Solar with the remainder borrowed from Europe!

In the summer it becomes mainly green (mix of Nuclear, Wind & Solar)

G. B. National Grid status
Or
National Grid: Live Status

 

[vitesse]

Germany's really big problem is that they made a political decision to have no nuclear generation in future, and have instead been using mainly a combination of oil, gas and coal generation. The use of coal made economic sense to them, but has been pretty disastrous for their emissions from generation.

On the other hand, France went the other way, with much of their generation being nuclear, so they have a particularly low emissions grid.

We've been investing heavily in wind generation for the past few years, and that shows in the rapid decrease in emissions for electricity generation over recent years.

To be fair, despite my severe criticism of Germany's knee-jerk abandonment of nuclear, they have rapidly installed a lot of wind turbines but most of these are land-based as Germany doesn't have much coast. But they should have managed the switch away from nuclear much better than they have done.

 

[vitesse]

Right! I've just had a brief look at the article - it's written by a German and references the Germany power supply situation. In which case, his data is probably correct. But the Grauniad (a paper I do usually trust more than most) really needed to emphasise the differences in the UK and German power generation policies.

 

[vitesse]

Finally, my understanding is that Tesla only use electricity from renewable sources in their manufacturing and Supercharger networks - or at least off-set Carbon where necessary?

 

[Keeper]

One of the most interesting documentaries on TV for a while - "Inside Bill's Brain - decoding Bill Gates" on Netflix tells how he commissioned a study (with $600,000 of his own money) on ways of reducing carbon emissions and global warming and maintaining society as we know it . The answer becomes obvious but it will need to persuade a vocal minority (The Guardian probably being amongst them) who are unable to grasp the bigger picture. Natural events skewed the argument a bit but they still hold. Well worth watching. Series of 3. Part 3 being about global warming. Provides an answer

 

[WannabeOwner]

the Grauniad (a paper I do usually trust more than most)

So much for the Guardian's Environmental Pledge

Supercharger networks

UK Supercharger juice is green - from Ecotricity I think (or used to be)

 

[vitesse]

One of the most interesting documentaries on TV for a while - "Inside Bill's Brain - decoding Bill Gates" on Netflix tells how he commissioned a study (with $600,000 of his own money) on ways of reducing carbon emissions and global warming and maintaining society as we know it . The answer becomes obvious but it will need to persuade a vocal minority (The Guardian probably being amongst them) who are unable to grasp the bigger picture. Natural events skewed the argument a bit but they still hold. Well worth watching. Series of 3. Part 3 being about global warming. Provides an answer

Is this about the slow-burn nuclear reactor that can run on stock-piled nuclear waste - and very safely? The Chinese were going to build the Gates-backed design but as it's US tech Trump kyboshed it

 

[davidmc]

One of the most interesting documentaries on TV for a while - "Inside Bill's Brain - decoding Bill Gates" on Netflix tells how he commissioned a study (with $600,000 of his own money) on ways of reducing carbon emissions and global warming and maintaining society as we know it . The answer becomes obvious but it will need to persuade a vocal minority (The Guardian probably being amongst them) who are unable to grasp the bigger picture. Natural events skewed the argument a bit but they still hold. Well worth watching. Series of 3. Part 3 being about global warming. Provides an answer

Watched it and was a fantastic Documentary.

 

[pgkevet]

None of the articles i have seen has looked at the complete picture which includes manufacture of vehicle and sourcing the components that went into it and sourcing it's fuel sources. So that includes exploration and developing iron ores and associated metals for the steels as well as the aluminium (about half of which is recycled) as well as extracting our Lithium, cobalt et al and manufacturing the batteries. One should also look at the pollutions caused in all those processes down to the leathers/plastics and computer bits inside the cars. Conventional cars are a tribute to recycling but still not every bit gets reused.
At the simplest end of the scale only less than 25% of the energy from petrol/deisel gets used for propulsion in a car whereas when used for generation that percentage goes up towards 50% conversion to electricity (to do with efficiencies of scale and the fact that a generator can be run at optimal RPM all the time).
And as a dyed-in-the-wool cycnic one should also look at the electricity i waste driving backwards and forwards to the SC getting stuff fixed...

 

[nativewolf]

Yup - this is because they Greens forced the German government to abandon nuclear after the Japanese Fukushima disaster, a situation that could never happen to German nuclear power plants. A case of let's help the planet by deliberately making it much dirtier

This is because the greens were and are now full of Russian influence. Direct and otherwise. Who won from Germany closing the nukes... Russia.