Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Burkey]

Volvo says manufacturing an EV generates 70% more emissions than its ICE counterpart - AutoBuzz.my

'according to a new study published by Volvo, manufacturing an EV actually generates up to 70% more carbon emissions as compared to the good ol’ internal combustion engine (ICE) car."
"that statistic above is specific only for the vehicle’s manufacturing process"

"Their findings also take into account the entire lifecycle carbon footprint of each vehicle, starting from the mining of raw materials for batteries and parts, production processes, and actual on-road usage for 200,000 km before final disposal."

"Naturally, the total carbon emissions of an EV relies heavily on how clean its electricity source is. With the global’s average electricity grid, which doesn’t involve much renewable sources, an EV barely undercuts a regular ICE vehicle in carbon emissions (four tonnes or roughly 7%)."

Hello my comments; This seems to be the best to expect with the current energy production sources at 200,000 km driving distance.

"So with the majority of an EV’s total lifetime carbon emissions being made up during the manufacturing process, how much do you have to drive to offset the on-road usage emissions on an ICE? According to Volvo, the breakeven point for an EV running on the global average electricity grid is at 109,918 km – more than half of a vehicle’s lifetime."

Hello my comments; this is how far needed to drive to break even currently using an average for electricity production. The miles change if we ever get to an all renewable electric grid. I wonder what the carbon footprint will be to build an all renewable electric grid?

“So if you’re confident that you’ll be driving your EVs past these mileages, then yes – an EV is the greener choice between the two options. However, if you foresee yourself mostly driving in the city, then good ol’ fossil fuel might still be the wiser choice for the time being, until we figure out how to make producing batteries less harmful to the earth!"

Ahh, i love a good study.
The only thing I love more than a good study is when a journalist starts making comparisons but fails to cite the source of the comparison data. Of course, the climate “skeptics” would’ve done their homework no doubt….I’m joking. Of course they don’t.

So, being a genuine sceptic, I went and did some research to check the veracity of the journalist‘s claims.

It seems that the “average“ passenger vehicle (whatever that is) emits about 120 grams of CO2 per km.
Call it 120 tonnes per 100,000km’s.
As a point of reference, the 2018 Mustang GT sits at 270g/km. So the “average” is a fairly frugal vehicle.

On the chart below (from Volvo’s study), can you show me where the 240 mark is?

Let‘s be generous.
Let’s say that the ICE vehicle produces half of the average. Hmm..,over its life, the EV doesn’t produce even 3/4 of the CO2 of this SUPER green (and entirely fictitious) ICE vehicle, and thats without even taking into account the CO2 required to build the ICE, and it assumes that the EV is using what they perceive to be the worst case scenario for electricity production.

Any chance that the journalist might have tried to deceive you?

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?
You can actually stop this from happening.
All you need to do is stop paying attention to MSN articles, or, at the very least, read the damn studies they cite and check the accuracy of the claims for yourself, instead of believing everything you read.

EDIT: For clarity, the line for “ICE“ on the Volvo chart is For their HYBRID vehicle, not a pure ICE.
How the journalist arrived at >100,000km’s is beyond me, when the average ICE produces 60t by the time it hits 50,000 km’s without adding the “cost of production“ CO2 tally.

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

Ahh, i love a good study.
The only thing I love more than a good study is when a journalist starts making comparisons but fails to cite the source of the comparison data. Of course, the climate “skeptics” would’ve done their homework no doubt….I’m joking. Of course they don’t.

So, being a genuine sceptic, I went and did some research to check the veracity of the journalist‘s claims.

It seems that the “average“ passenger vehicle (whatever that is) emits about 120 grams of CO2 per km.
Call it 120 tonnes per 100,000km’s.
As a point of reference, the 2018 Mustang GT sits at 270g/km. So the “average” is a fairly frugal vehicle.

On the chart below (from Volvo’s study), can you show me where the 240 mark is?

Let‘s be generous.
Let’s say that the ICE vehicle produces half of the average. Hmm..,over its life, the EV doesn’t produce even 3/4 of the CO2 of this SUPER green (and entirely fictitious) ICE vehicle, and thats without even taking into account the CO2 required to build the ICE, and it assumes that the EV is using what they perceive to be the worst case scenario for electricity production.

Any chance that the journalist might have tried to deceive you?

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?
You can actually stop this from happening.
All you need to do is stop paying attention to MSN articles, or, at the very least, read the damn studies they cite and check the accuracy of the claims for yourself, instead of believing everything you read.

EDIT: For clarity, the line for “ICE“ on the Volvo chart is For their HYBRID vehicle, not a pure ICE.
How the journalist arrived at >100,000km’s is beyond me, when the average ICE produces 60t by the time it hits 50,000 km’s without adding the “cost of production“ CO2 tally.

Just for info the 100g/km figure would be the very best g/km figure for a conventional ICE. As an example the current Fiesta 1.0 ranges from 110 to 120g/km.

 

[sk47]

Ahh, i love a good study.
The only thing I love more than a good study is when a journalist starts making comparisons but fails to cite the source of the comparison data. Of course, the climate “skeptics” would’ve done their homework no doubt….I’m joking. Of course they don’t.

So, being a genuine sceptic, I went and did some research to check the veracity of the journalist‘s claims.

It seems that the “average“ passenger vehicle (whatever that is) emits about 120 grams of CO2 per km.
Call it 120 tonnes per 100,000km’s.
As a point of reference, the 2018 Mustang GT sits at 270g/km. So the “average” is a fairly frugal vehicle.

On the chart below (from Volvo’s study), can you show me where the 240 mark is?

Let‘s be generous.
Let’s say that the ICE vehicle produces half of the average. Hmm..,over its life, the EV doesn’t produce even 3/4 of the CO2 of this SUPER green (and entirely fictitious) ICE vehicle, and thats without even taking into account the CO2 required to build the ICE, and it assumes that the EV is using what they perceive to be the worst case scenario for electricity production.

Any chance that the journalist might have tried to deceive you?

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?
You can actually stop this from happening.
All you need to do is stop paying attention to MSN articles, or, at the very least, read the damn studies they cite and check the accuracy of the claims for yourself, instead of believing everything you read.

EDIT: For clarity, the line for “ICE“ on the Volvo chart is For their HYBRID vehicle, not a pure ICE.
How the journalist arrived at >100,000km’s is beyond me, when the average ICE produces 60t by the time it hits 50,000 km’s without adding the “cost of production“ CO2 tally.

Just for info the 100g/km figure would be the very best g/km figure for a conventional ICE. As an example the current Fiesta 1.0 ranges from 110 to 120g/km.

Hello; What you two seem to have missed is the study was done by Volvo, not by the author. There were a few different authors reporting on that same study. The link to the Actual Volvo study was in the bits I quoted.

Second thing is this was a well setup study by Volvo. They used a vehicle they build which can have either an ICE or a battery motor. So it was very close to apples to apples comparison. The variables mainly being the source of the electricity to power the EV model.
Using an electricity we have actually in place now the difference was slight between the ICE and the EV in terms of carbon. Also the EV had to be driven well over half the 200, 000 km life distance of the vehicle to reach a break even point for the EV.

The greater advantage for a possible carbon footprint of the EV was using the imaginary circumstance of all electricity coming from pure renewable generations sources. A condition which does not exist in the world.

Does not matter the intention of a particular journalist since the link to the actual Volvo study was included.

 

[CJJon]

Hello;

Does not matter the intention of a particular journalist since the link to the actual Volvo study was included.

Bullshit. It is paramount.

 

[sk47]

Bullshit. It is paramount.

Volvo Says Manufacturing An Electric Car Generates 70 Percent More Emissions Than Its ICE Equivalent | Carscoops

Volvo study shows making EVs leads to 70% more emission compared to ICE vehicles (hindustantimes.com)

Volvo says manufacturing an EV generates 70% more emissions than its ICE counterpart - AutoBuzz.my



Hello; Here are three articles about the Volvo study. You seem to think it all depends on which article I pick to post. I figure it is the study itself which is important and that the author makes factual comments.

The study answers a question important to the entire EV push. This study included the whole process including from mining the raw materials to the end of vehicle use at 200, 000 km (maybe 124,000 miles or so if I estimate anywhere close.)
There may be improvements possible in the ICE power trains which can close the lifetime gap even closer.
It was not too long ago a diesel engine had a clear 15% or so advantage over a gas engine. Direct injection closed that gap down to around 10%. That put a diesel car off my shopping list. The diesel cost more to buy, is heavier and I do not want diesel smell. In my area the cost of diesel fuel is nearly always more than gas, sometime by as much as 80 cents a gallon. The heavier diesel will wear out tires and suspension parts faster.

I will need to look back at the link to the Volvo study again to see if a battery pack replacement is factored in the study. I do not recall as I did a quick read thru and may have missed it. I get that many do not count on having to replace a battery pack, claiming they will last. Such is another question for a thorough study.

 

[Mitch03]

Bullshit. It is paramount.

Typical response from circle jerk John when he‘s wrong but thinks he’s right.

 

[Gregs24]

Typical response from circle jerk John when he‘s wrong but thinks he’s right.

Let's hope your charm improves with your post count

 

[sk47]

Let's hope your charm improves with your post count

Hello; John has written worse.

 

[MaskedRacerX]

Let's hope your charm improves with your post count

I hope he enjoys driving around in his 2003 Mustang Conra ...

 

[CJJon]

Hello; John has written worse.

It's spelled J...O...N.

 

[CJJon]

Volvo Says Manufacturing An Electric Car Generates 70 Percent More Emissions Than Its ICE Equivalent | Carscoops

Volvo study shows making EVs leads to 70% more emission compared to ICE vehicles (hindustantimes.com)

Volvo says manufacturing an EV generates 70% more emissions than its ICE counterpart - AutoBuzz.my



Hello; Here are three articles about the Volvo study. You seem to think it all depends on which article I pick to post. I figure it is the study itself which is important and that the author makes factual comments.

The study answers a question important to the entire EV push. This study included the whole process including from mining the raw materials to the end of vehicle use at 200, 000 km (maybe 124,000 miles or so if I estimate anywhere close.)
There may be improvements possible in the ICE power trains which can close the lifetime gap even closer.
It was not too long ago a diesel engine had a clear 15% or so advantage over a gas engine. Direct injection closed that gap down to around 10%. That put a diesel car off my shopping list. The diesel cost more to buy, is heavier and I do not want diesel smell. In my area the cost of diesel fuel is nearly always more than gas, sometime by as much as 80 cents a gallon. The heavier diesel will wear out tires and suspension parts faster.

I will need to look back at the link to the Volvo study again to see if a battery pack replacement is factored in the study. I do not recall as I did a quick read thru and may have missed it. I get that many do not count on having to replace a battery pack, claiming they will last. Such is another question for a thorough study.

Indeed, it is the study itself that is important (your words) but then you admit to only doing a quick read thru. You can't see how utterly intellectually lazy that is? I do the opposite...I pay little attention to biased opinion articles and go right to the source documents referenced. Again, you just skim them.

Perhaps you are not capable of the critical thinking it takes to actually comprehend the science behind the opinions. Posting more and more opinion pieces about the article really does nothing to bolster whatever position you are espousing, it just makes you look like a kook.

I did get a chuckle out of your heavy diesel concerns though. That's a new one for me. Oh, and 'deisel' is so much harder to spell than 'gas'.

 

[CJJon]

Let's hope your charm improves with your post count

I wonder which of the booted he is. Probably that BJ guy again hoping for more pictures of my hands.

 

[Mitch03]

I hope he enjoys driving around in his 2003 Mustang Conra ...

says the cartoon character who drives an alphabet

 

[Mitch03]

I wonder which of the booted he is. Probably that BJ guy again hoping for more pictures of my hands.

Wrong again......

 

[Gregs24]

says the cartoon character who drives an alphabet

Oh dear it didn't!

4 posts in and yet to post anything civil or of value

Sponsored