(1/x) The first mistake he makes is putting that "are EVs gonna solve climate change" claim out there.
While maybe ironical, there might be people that actually think EV advocates think that way.
Of course they won´t. Road traffic makes up approx. 20% of the EU emissions.
(2/x)
While this is significant, it obviously won´t solve climate change if all cars are just replaced with EVs.
His first point is also correct. You won´t be able to reach the fleet avg with ICE cars in the future. But that´s the whole point. In order to reach the
(3/x)
Paris agreement we need to lower the fleet avg. CO2. If ICE cars can´t reach that we need a better technology that can.
Also yes, EVs aren´t "zero emissions", but keep in mind we´re also not including indirect emissions from ICE cars here.
(4/x)
If we´d include indirect emissions ICE cars would pollute ~30% more. EVs with the current EU energy mix (267g CO2/kWh @ 17kWh/100km) would be around 45g CO2/km. The avg. modern petrol car would be at around 210g CO2/km (7l/100km @ 3,14kg CO2/l in total).
(4/x)
If you use his figure of ~189g CO2/kWh it becomes even better.
His assumption for the electricity consumption is a bit high imo. The iPace is reaally thirsty. My number is based on thousands of cars on the platform "Spritmonitor" where people can log their real consumption
(5/x)
But we both come to a similar conclusion of about 46g CO2/km.
Fine, we all know that.
Where he´s wrong is with the claim that you´re only reducing the emissions by 50%. Because no ICE car will reach the 95g target in real life.
95g/km of total emissions equals 3l/100km.
(6/x)
He´s also way too much looking at local conditions. I looked at the EU avg. That´s what really matters because on average that´s what everyone is using.
To finalize this part: No one ever said EVs were zero emissions in total. All life cycle analyzes factor that in.
(7/x)
And I´m a bit confused here. He talks about all the solar and stuff which indirectly also implies that the electricity mix will get better. It´s not gonna stay at 267g/kWh as he sort of implied at the beginning. It´s getting better EVERY year.
(8/x)
And yes, for some people they don´t work yet, but they will can still buy ICEs and will be able to buy used ICE for quite some time.
But we should stop making new ones.
As he explained himself EVs are already reducing the amount of CO2. And it´s improving every single year.
(9/x)
Talking about particulate filters and AdBlue: He is in no way mentioning that particulate filters are allowed to be burned off every few hundres kilometers. That basically emits all the previously stored particulates back into the environment.
(10/x)
Also he doesn´t talk about where AdBlue comes from.
Getting on to the topic of commercial vehicles: EV adoption in this space is accelerating VERY quickly. @bobbyllew has made lots of Fully Charged episodes on that. It´s just cheaper and works really well.
(11/x)
Oh boy, now we´re getting into the "actually BEV is only transitional tech to H2".
Actually not too many people are still betting on H2 for road traffic. It doesn´t make a lot of sense because BEV are cheaper, far more efficient,need far less maintenance,offer more space.
(12/x)
And he´s absolutely correct that buying less cars is great. And if these cars are electric it´s even better, because they last an awful lot of time as he showed in his video.
And also the point of looking at houses is absolutely correct.
(13/x)
If you would go and have solar panels on your roof and use these to power your home, your heat pump and your EV, that´s basically the best thing you can do. I wonder why this is not his conclusion.
(14/14)
He´s saying a lot of absolutely great things but just comes to the wrong conclusions imo.
He actually explained himself that EVs are the better option if you´re buying a new car. But somehow he didn´t seem to have noticed that.
When talking about environmental aspects of EVs you have to see the whole picture.
They still have a larger production CO2 footprint than ICE cars, but compensate that fairly quickly due to the much lower footprint in their operation.
The great thing about them is:
They automatically get cleaner every year, because the energy mix is inevitably moving towards 100% renewables. And you don't have to change a single part on the car, because it doesn't produce any CO2 itself.
So if @harrym_vids decides to at some point replace e.g. his Panda with a small efficient EV and puts solar on his farm to power his heating, home electricity AND electric car, *boom* the car becomes 100% renewably powered instantly, because he changed the energy source.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Jetzt fängt @SWagenknecht auch schon damit an...
Immer das selbe Lied:
"wir brauchen erstmal 100% erneuerbaren Strom",
"Mehr als die Hälfte des Stroms kommt aus fossilen Brennstoffen" (was eine dreiste Lüge ist) @Elektro_Robin @Stefan_Hajek @AukeHoekstra
"nur EVs mit kleinem Akku sind umweltfreundlich"
(Das ist nicht falsch, aber vernachlässigt einfach den Markt und was gekauft wird. Zudem sind auch EVs mit größeren Reichweiten umweltfreundlicher als die Verbrenner Pendants, wie man u.a. dank @AukeHoekstra und @transenv weiß)
"durch E Autos wird Kohlestrom-Anteil hochgefahren"
Quelle? Die Kiel-"Studie"?!
"Produktion von E Auto weniger umweltfreundlich als vom Verbrenner"
- das stimmt, aber können wir diese Produktions-Diskussion bitte endlich mal sein lassen? Life Cycle zählt, NICHT Produktion!