The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles | Graham Conway | TEDxSanAntonio
NOTE FROM TED: This talk only reflects the speaker's personal views and interpretation. Several claims in this talk lack scientific support. We've flagged this talk because it falls outside the content guidelines TED gives TEDx organizers. TEDx events are independently organized by volunteers. The guidelines we give TEDx organizers are described in more detail here: storage.ted.com/tedx/manuals/t...
This talk will challenge the popular perception that Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are environmentally friendly, and will argue that we are inappropriately rushing the market introduction of these vehicles. BEVs are commonly sold under the guise of being ‘Zero Emissions,’ an assertion that is not true by any definition. Brake pads produce emissions, as do
tires and even interiors under sunlight. The electricity that powers BEVs is generated by power plants, 64% of which burn fossil fuels in the U.S.-fossil fuels that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Even more importantly, there are significant CO2 emissions
created during the manufacture of the battery pack, meaning that in order to offset the carbon created during the production process, a BEV must drive 40,000 - 100,000 miles before being environmentally comparable to a gasoline-powered vehicle. Hybrid vehicles, on the other hand,
which combine much smaller batteries with efficient internal combustion engines, have been shown to be a much better option for lowering global CO2. Unfortunately, they do not receive the same marketable ‘kudos’ or policy backing as full BEVs. We are headed down the wrong path by
rolling out BEVs before making the manufacturing and electricity generation CO2 neutral. Dr. Graham Conway is a Principal Engineer in the Automotive Division at Southwest Research Institute. For the last ten years he has been immersed in evaluating automotive technologies and consulting for car companies and suppliers. This gives him unique insights and perspectives on the industry. He is passionate about making vehicles more efficient to ensure the future of the planet and has a message to share about some common misconceptions about electric and non-electric vehicles. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
I'd like to see him go into the carbon footprint of the production and lifespan of solar and wind powered sources. never mind the recyclability of them or lack of.
They have made great strides. Lots of articles with updates.
Yes, without doing that analysis, the conclusions of his video do not make sense, I am afraid.
Every year, I see more wind farms and solar panel fields going up. They are eating up agricultural land and wildlife habitat. All this in an effort to meet an insatiable demand for electric power. Most of the solution needs to occur on the demand side. How much energy do we really need? No one talks very much about Fusion power, but truly it could be mankind's salvation. It could lead the way to viable fuel cells, ability to generate freshwater from salt, weaning the global shipping industry from carbon fuels.
the future is nuclear
@@colin591 the only future in fact but people are too scared because of a few incredibly rare incidents.
Don't forget. It makes more sense from a green perspective to keep your old car running and well-maintained as long as you can. There are significant environmental costs to both manufacturing a new automobile and adding your old car to the ever-growing collective junk heap.
That's not necessarily true. It depends on how much you drive, the mileage your old car gets, and what you plan to replace it with.
I had a 1973 Plymouth Satellite that I kept 19 years and 236,000 miles; and later a 2000 Ford Taurus that I kept twelve years and 150,000 miles. I'm doing my part...
my 30yo Honda Civic is still fun to drive and reliable - my main problem (apart from the lack of airbags - I'm a safe driver) is the cost of registration and third-party insurance - nearly $1000pa for a car I only drove about 1000km last year so local share cars I can rent for $10/hour look relatively attractive - except I had a huge fight over a $1500 charge for a fake/scam 'repair' from a major car rental firm - I got it refunded after 3 months of 20 emails and threats but I lost a lotta sleep - so that's put me off those kinda businesses
This argument is mostly used to encourage inaction. The environmental impacts caused by each problem are not equal. The pressing issue is atmospheric carbon. There is also an issue with waste recycling, landfill usage, etc but those are not as dangerous to the future of the planet even in the long term. Don't take a 1 year old car off the road to replace it with electric. But don't drive it for 20 year either. We need most of the world to be on electric cars in about 20 years and for the grid to be mostly renewable in 30
@@NotMyActualName_ you ought to take a look at the total percentage of carbon emissions that come from passenger vehicles.
With so called renewable energy, emissions for the production of solar panels (and the recycling of failed ones) also needs to be taken into account. As a mechanic I do service hybrid cars also and so many of them can't even reverse out of the service bay without the petrol engine starting and when test driving the petrol engine spends more time running than you think.
Absolutely correct. Solar panels are made from toxic metals (the mining of which is monopolized by the Chinese), and end up in landfills once they go kaput, because they can't be recycled. The same is true for EV batteries. The people touting batteries and solar panels act like these things just magically appear out of nowhere and don't have any harmful costs/externalities. Green energy is dangerous fraud.
i too service and own a hybrid vehicle and yes some instance mine does start when its been sat in the 'READY' mode or a while... i think my petrol engine kicks in at 20mph but i would sooner have that than a all electric .... even the battery tech on mine is more stable that of the lithium cells
Building wind and solar does produce lots of emissions also.
It doenst produce anything the vast amounts of CO2 and CH4 that increase and maintain the greenhouse effect
Old saying: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
its only gonna be temporary though because once the required amount is built, no more will be needed so no more being built and no more emissions made from making them
@@grommitt1385Not true, solar panels and turbine blades wear out and need to be replaced regularly. Turbine blades in particular are literally just buried in massive landfills as they can't be feasibly recycled. Still better than a coal power plant? Surely, but nothing is perfect.
Do solar panels have to be produced every day that they're being used, like oil does? No. Try to actually use your brain.
He makes great points! BUT "renewable sources" of energy still produce a HUGE about of waste and are damaging to the environment. If we would encourage Nuclear power as the main source of power, the amount of effect on the environment would be by far the lowest.
HILARIOUS! As though creating renewable energy doesn't create C02. I'll just throw 2 fun facts (2 of MANY) about wind turbines. 1) Each turbine requires 750 YARDS of concrete! Hmmm... wonder what they did to conjure that up? 2) Each turbine blade has a serviceable life of about 15 years, after which they are removed, then BURIED (they're made of carbon-fiber and are not recyclable) in giant landfills where earthmoving machines carve out shallow graves for them - they are about 120 feet long.
But the same leftists that were screaming about nuclear in the 70's will start screaming again. How do you and Greta handle that?
In my VAST expertise! LOL. Maybe, we could actually get people in Congress that truly understand Neuclear Power and how Clean, Reliable, and Safe it is. Then use it as a "middle" ground between the left and the right???? Whether there truly is global warming and IF it is truly influenced by "Man," no of that matters. We can't depend on fossil fuels forever. There is a limited amount. IF we start to build nuclear power plants again AND continue to use ALL sources of energy until the plants are up and running.....we could be truly "energy independent " (making the right happy) AND truly "Green" (once the vast majority of our power is nuclear) thus making the left happy. It would be a WIN/WIN.
@@patrickf7182 The carbon payback time of a turbine is generally under a year and for solar cells it's generally less than 3 years. Solar cells have service guarantees starting at 20 years now and I would expect roughly the same from turbines. If a turbine does indeed fail after 15 years, that's still >15x carbon savings. Recycling them is indeed a problem but there is no silver bullet and companies are working on recycling the resins and fiberglass blades.
@@Arkir24 Nuclear Reactors can effectively run in perpetuity. 20 years is not a long time. Not only have companies complained that they didn't last as long as stated, they're going to be replacing them every day.
I'm in the renewable energy field and even that needs to be looked at. During construction and operation of a wind or solar farm, thousands of gallons of diesel are burned every day, not to mention the environmental impacts on tree clearing on a large scale. Plus the life cycle of wind turbines is usually 20-30 years and large components arrive on ships (which burn 2000 gal of heavy diesel per hour) and major components like the blades end up in landfills when the site is repowered as they are not recyclable. Nuclear is the best thing we have so far.
Oil production has all of the same problems without the benefit of resulting in carbon free energy.
Wind turbine blades only last 7 years, if that. The neseil which is the main component is 7 years. Depending on whether it's a 3-piece or a four-piece Tower each section is good for 20 years.
And one wind turbine produces barely enough to to power one home lol
@@NSWvet83 what kind of a home is using more than 6 million kwh in a year?
And is oil flying from the ground into the cars? It is shipped with millions of transportation in every possible form causing insane destruction. How many pumps, pipes, ships, trucks etc are built and used purely to transport oil? If we want to caunt in really everything (we must) the picture for oil will look much much worse. How many oil ship disasters have we seen? How many wars and kills for oil fields? I could list all the sh!t that comes with oil all day long..
Like George Carlin said, "When the earth is ready, it will shake us off like fleas. Regardless of what we do to it".
He also said that humans could not impact the environment.. but i believe that was deeep satire.
@@hickstylezhis math could also be said to be satire. He claims that the average cumulative driving emissions for combustion non-hybrid is 30 tons. Over 180k miles that’s about 151g/co2 per mile. The official EPA emissions for a Toyota Camry non hybrid is about 280g/mile. For the hybrid variant about 170g/mile. He is showing data that is off by more than 80% compared to a sedan which isn’t even representative of what average people drive in the US. Take all the trucks and SUVs, the EPA estimates about 350-400g/mile for US average. That drastically changes his argument.
It is so wonderful to find someone that feels the same way about electric vehicles as I do...as a hotrodder I LOVE ELECTRIC CARS !!!! but there are many points against going full electric on a national or even world level that you addressed so wonderfully. My only issue with your talk is the use of solar and wind generators...to go back to the pollution emissions you talked about in batteries the same can be said about solar and wind. On a recent trip down to Texas I had the opportunity to see the wind farms across the nation being repaired/updated and the carbon footprint created by this exercise far outweighs the benefits to this endeavor. As we see in today's news California is having an issue as to what to do with the outdated and burned out solar panels that contain toxic metals....they have driven out all recyclers able to deal with this and are now resorting to just burying them which will cause future ecological issues (liberal hypocrisy at it's finest I guess) We should ask ' Why are the most efficient solar panels banned from being imported into the US?' but we are afraid of the answer. Why is wind power pushed so hard when it shows it can not provide power equal to it's pollution defecate (that word is wrong but google correct can't fathom so...) ? As I said...as a hotrodder I am all for electric vehicles....I have followed 'Gone Postal' , 'Killacycle' and many others and they are awesome ! I agree with everything you said...except...the solar and wind power point....Nuclear and Hydro are the only proven clean energy systems that we can rely on.
I'm totally with you on the nuclear side. And hydro too but that is more geography specific. In some places it can be virtually impact free on nature while in others it does cause harm.
@@chrisbauer1925 Unfortunately it is not that simple. I am a big fan of nuclear, but for most countries around the world it is not economically possible to go fully nuclear. France, the nuclear superpower, is facing a huge issue having outdated reactors long after the end of life cycle, that will be super expesive to replace/renew, and they might be possibly shut down in near future. Hydro, as you mentioned, can be a local ecological disaster, and also produces co2 and methane due to a large standing body of water with stuff rotting inside, but still, it is one of the cleanest. Just saying that no solution is easy, and it will take time to mitigate the issues. We should focus on all aspects, not just one. Make solar less toxic, make wind more efficient, nuclear cheaper, use hydro where safe, live less wasteful lives, vote for environmentally aware parties... Yeah the last two are actually the hardest to achieve
They cause a bigger carbon footprint print then a combustion engine
yes !!!
Great points but Conway works for Southwest Research Institute which does a lot of work with oil and gas and has many patents related to fossil fuels. He claims that the average cumulative driving emissions for combustion non-hybrid is 30 tons. Over 180k miles that’s about 151g/co2 per mile. The official EPA emissions for a Toyota Camry non hybrid is about 280g/mile. For the hybrid variant about 170g/mile. He is showing data that is off by more than 80% compared to a sedan which isn’t even representative of what average people drive in the US. Take all the trucks and SUVs, the EPA estimates about 350-400g/mile for US average. That drastically changes his argument.
He was doing fine until he claimed that renewable electric energy sources (solar and wind) produce no CO2. He needs to include the CO2 produced during their manufacture and operation. Windmill blades are produced from composite materials in which most of the components are derived from petroleum.
True, but the total energy cost is still much less.
CO2 is not a pollutant and CO2 concentration is closer to plant starvation than over saturation.
Yes making them recyclable, right?
He also doesn't address what happens when there is no sun and wind? Neither has renewable energy come up with a way to produce enough consistent power to run industry, i.e. smelters & refineries, which product the components needed to make batteries and renewable energy components.
@@lautoka63 No way, the energy cost to produce a wind tower will never be recouped by the wind tower over it's life, not to mention ongoing maintenance, breakdowns and waste when it is decommisioned
"There are no solutions, only tradeoffs." -Thomas Sowell
Even pretending like solar and wind is 0 CO2 should be subjected to the same analysis to come to the same conclusion, merely a trade off. It’s said the CO2 in the concrete foundation of the windmill off-sets it’s benefit. Also, the life span of solar and wind hardware is limited and solar being heavily dependent on batteries for it’s greatest utility. There is indeed only trade-offs and a bunch of salesmen in-charge of mystifying the truth.
Well, I like the sentiment, but Sowell is a crackpot when it comes to economics.
@@peek5548 Selling the green dream. That’s what the environmentalists do. But by doing so altruism becomes avarice as they profit from it. We’re going too fast and derailment is imminent and the only solution.
@@Mike-vd2qt Says the... fill in the blank.
@@Mike-vd2qt says the Marxist. Lol, yeah, Marxist ends so well, doesn't it? I'm sure you consider everyone outside your group-think to be a crackpot. BTW, modern monetary theory doesn't work. Hence the reason we have Bidenflation.
How about the emissions from the production of fuel?
LOL. no one is disputing that. The problem is, the claim that EV's are emissions free is an complete and utter lie. Now the question for you is, "How about the emissions from the TOTAL production of EV's". That includes everything required in the production of EV's.
Great talk. He seemed to make the same mistake though: he didn’t draw the box around the solar panel or the wind turbines? Would be interesting to see the numbers for that.
Actually wind turbine never produce enough "green" electricity in it's life time to offset CO2 required to build the turbine at the first place
He tells us to view the EV as a whole yet he didn't account for Co2 emissions of processing a barrel of oil to gasoline. One barrel of oil to gas (42 gallons) produces 520 pounds of Co2 (237kg)
It is true to say that todays solar panels have a carbon footprint but as time goes by solar panels and wind etc will gradually replace all carbon emitting manufacturing processes, we have to start somewhere 🙂
@@daliborzak2485 Same thing with solar. Look into tellurium some time, and the whole mountainsides that China has to blow up to keep pace with the US' and Europe's demand for solar panels.
@@captainphoenix Stop cherry picking; stop with the false equivalency. Stop lying. Total mining in the world will be drastically reduced as we switch to 100% renewable energy. The harm done by mining & other industrial processes would also be dramatically reduced by getting rid of capitalism & the Wetiko disease that causes it.
It takes a lot of energy to produce these vehicles, so hold onto your vehicles longer, your clothes, phones etc longer. However, big companies don’t want this to happen.
Unfortunately, under this current administration household budgets are stretched or worse. The objective of converting America to EV's and other alternatives is Biden's catch 22. With spending power gone, most people will reuse the old worn out vehicles and goods that are now less environmentally friendly out of necessity.
Making quality products that last long time & keeping them is big part of solution that is ignored. Better public transportation would also make bigger difference than EV cars.
The video is only about vehicles.
So right! Recycle, re-use and repurpose!
It's called "planned obsolescence" or pure greed...... they don't want you to own anything, they want your very existence to be a service they can charge you for......
A good analysis, but surprisingly he missed the amount of CO2 emitted in mining rare earth elements for solar panels and wind turbines, not to mention they contain massive amounts of processed petroleum products we often refer to as plastics.
And oil extraction or construction of drilling equipment doesn't emit CO2?
@@Javaman21011 Of course oil extraction emits co2, just less than rare earth materials.
@@gordcross1266 you got data to back that up? Also, the oil extraction is constant for the life of the vehicle whereas the rare earth metals are only during production of the vehicle.
At around 8:15 he does address the mining of rare earth minerals.
@@sayeager5559 Fair enough. I think I missed that chart on first watch.
Brilliant. Agree with others here about carbon costs creating wind and solar sources. Needs to be added.
Excellent!
Excellent presentation, but I still wonder why nuclear is never part of the solution. There is nothing remotely close to it in clean energy production, and over all the years we've used it, very little damage has occurred, and always when safety protocols were ignored. I would love to see the graphs with nuclear energy used. Oh, and we also have reactors now that can reuse the waste, producing basically no nuclear waste. Why not?
Because it doesn’t feed greed …
@@m3photo726 what doesn’t feed greed and whose greed are you talking about?
@@johnoliver1207 Come on man use some imagination. Whose greed indeed… Try Exxon, Chevron, Shell, to name just a few.
The French are still using and building Nuclear power plants aren't they. So all is not lost.
Because nuclear is "scary". Chernobyl, 3 mile Island, Fukushima are still in people's minds. Though Fukushima only slightly elevated background radiation and 3 Mile Island wasn't really an accident.
It’s worse than he’s saying because he’s omitted the enormous amount of new global infrastructure required to get enough electric stations around the world. The oil/plastic coated cabling alone would run into millions of miles.
You presume no local power, this is why many Tesla Superchargers have Solar arrays supplying them …
Nor did he mention the co2 produced in manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines which is enormous! And let's not get into having to replace them due to a short lifespan. Nor shall we mention their disposal impacts on the environment. He deliberately mislead his audience in the end!
@@chrisbraid2907 But the CO2 produced by producing your car is enormous and you would have to drive it well past the time you would probably own it to offset that.
Like the global infrastructure that needed to be built to support the gasoline industry (an infrastructure that will soon be useless as we run out of fossil fuels). Electric stations should be standalone and solar powered, we know this can be done.
never mind half the human race doesn't even have electricity right now. how are they MAKING that electricity they are charging the cars with...? hrmm yep.
great video. It would be good to look at CO2 emissions on disposal of end of life vehicles
CO2 feeds all life. CO2 cannot heat anything.
Have people heard of bicycles. No one is above taking the bus or the Subway. Have you have seen how obese many people are. Tell me I am correct.
Probably right about the same like the "recycling" of wind turbines at their often far-earlier end of life than modelled...the glass-fibre parts get burned in waste incineration plants (or buried in the earth), the concrete foundations are simply covered up with soil (because they are not usable for more modern turbines) and the shaft of the turbines are the only thing that see a second life as raw material. Batteries up to this day can't be recycled without absurd amounts of new power, ruining every calculation at being "clean"...
MIT had a study. I don't know much about it but it gave the number 12X the energy to get rid of an electric vehicle. Furthermore, batteries need special storage because of the toxic chemicals they contain.
@@1s3ngr1m Well said and great points.
no discussion on the AMOUNT of water needed to manufacture the components that end up in either vehicle. Fresh, potable water is a huge environmental aspect that needs to be taken into consideration.
@williamhamer How true. And it comes out wildly in favor of RE & EVs.
@@J4Zonian How does it favor EVs? From what I understand, just mining Lithium for the batteries requires a lot of water.
@@roykowalski4125 Everything humans do has effects. The harm done by fuels is so phenomenally, extraordinarily, tremendously huge, that RE & EVs are a tiny fraction of it, & get smaller as more RE & EVs are added to the grid & to manufacturing. ICEVs only get worse, as EROEI gets smaller & fuels get farther, deeper, scarcer, & more diffuse, which they’ve been doing for a while. People need to stop paying attention to the insane right wing climate-denying delayalist & ARF (anti-renewable fanatic) blogs & the politicians & media they own. They’re lying to you.
@@J4Zonian And people need to do there own homework and really analyze the data rather than paying attention to left wing climate and renewable energy fanatics. Look at California and Germany for example. The cost of renewable energy sources has come down (solar panels, turbines) yet the cost of electricity keeps rising. How come no one is talking about how many years we went backwards in "harm done" during covid lockdowns world wide, no one was driving. Reason is because there was no significant change to talk about. How come when when climate fanatics say things like "The earth hasn't been this hot in 3,000 years" no one asks the reason the earth was this hot 3,000 years ago? The problem is people either go all in left or all in right and have done zero research or are have the data to take either position. Partisan politics has gotten to the point where even science will be on one side or the other. Researchers don't get funding unless they lie on one side or the other.
How do they do it in Saudi? Local municipalities will NEVER allow desalinization, because they want total control over water production, but you will never hear this on the news.
This reinforces my belief around the importance of buying less, but when we do buy, buying the most durable/quality products on the market and then taking care of them for maximum life.
@Andrew Earle I agree, but cumulative emissions are what matter now; we're at a moment when we have to leave all fossil fuel use behind as fast as possible. Ditching ICEVs now makes more sense than hanging onto them & emitting more GHGs & other pollution, then ditching them later. It's important to make sure they're recycled, not resold, unless they're still good, & go to people with the most polluting cars, which must get scrapped. Subsidies are important, & not just regressive measures like tax credits. We need to turn over the world's ICEV fleet as fast as possible, & replace them with BEVs to avoid perpetuating fossil fuel use. EVs pay off the $, energy & carbon costs of their construction in an average of 2 years compared to ICEVS, & of course even old EVs keep getting cleaner as the grids that power them get cleaner, which they are, though too slowly. Transport emissions will only go down by retiring or not using ICEVs. The best ways to make that happen are staying put, walking, bicycling, & PUBLIC TRANSIT! (Including a state of the art national/international high speed rail network to replace flying & long distance driving.) But where vehicles are necessary, sharing, renting, or leasing EVs is smart so the valuable metals, time, & other resources of ICEVs can be better used right away. One place durability is crucial is in wood use---buildings, furniture, recycling paper... not on just a personal level but with government policy making it easier, if not required, setting up processes & institutions... Whatever's needed.
When people watch something that already matches their beliefs; GL trying to change them.
No one makes a quality vehicle any longer, all plastic pieces of junk.
@@J4Zonian automobiles are not the primary polluter. Industry and power plants are the primary source of air Pollution
@@robertchiarizia9463 Climate catastrophe is an existential crisis. We have to eliminate GHG emissions as fast as humanly possible with a comprehensive emergency Green New Deal. That means renewablizing everything that burns fuels, which means electrifying almost all primary energy. That means electrifying transportation, the main source of GHGs & some other air pollutants in the US. Cleaning up power generation, transportation, industry, & buildings all at the same time yields synergistic effects.
Please do an expanded version of this talking about the batteries, what it take to produce them, there life span, and what happens to them when they have reached the end of their efficient life span.
Or how much energy and waste it takes to make solar cells. And how that's pushed off to other countries so all the pollution is NIMBY.
@@A3Kr0n green believers don't have a problem polluting other parts of the world or they would demand they be built and manufactured in the U.S. which has strict laws. Of course, that will cost more and the is the crux of the problem. They want green, but it has to be cheap.
And the impact on the environment of old dead batteries. It is really startling to think that fossil fuels overall may be better, especially the cleaner kinds such as Natural Gas, etc. Our research keeps making us dumber...
@@davidlemons5650 plus combustion engines don’t necessarily have to be run on fossil fuels.
They are recycled like other valuable materials
I am currently weighting my options between petrol and electric options while buying my new car, while also looking future gas/electric prices. I cannot decide.
Most Americans will NEVER hear this information because we are a headline news country.
In this case this is better. This video is at least 2 Years old and complete BS. His sourced data is about 4-8 years old. Newer studies shows that including also the the full picture on combustion cars, these are less ecological than BEVs at the first driven mile.
@@muten861 Admiral your ship has been sunk
@@mochiebellina8190 I see rising numbers of EVs. Please explain me, where the sunken ship is located.
@@mochiebellina8190 Please
@Fritösen-Admiral you see rising numbers of EVs because that is what is being pushed. That doesn't support your argument and the video said we need more time to improve on the way EVs are made... data gets 'old' the minute it is released
In 2004, my company asked me if I wanted to work from home and I said yes. Telecommuters work longer hours, have great quality and goof off less. That is being green. I have saved over 30,000 in fuel.
"Telecommuters work longer hours, have great quality and goof off less." I absolutely believe in the much better QoL, but you might be an exception when it comes to longer hours (which would suggest *less* QoL, no?) and less goofing off. I don't have any original data, but I've read that many companies -- including Elon's -- want people back in the office simply because too many apparently don't do quality at-home work. (There's also more meaningful team interaction, I understand, when face-to-face instead of zoom-ing.)
Sweet..
Ya know that Mister Mister lady? I think I killed her...
Telecommuting is a joke for most companies. Productivity falls through the floor.
@@kenalanvoices There are studies coming out about it now. Huge difference... Companies en masse are abandoning telecommuting for this very reason.
He makes very good points, but he forgot one important factor. The energy necessary to produce the wind turbines and solar power cells. They don't come from thin air and produce an enormous amount of waste.
Not to mention outsourcing the mining and environmental damage to 3rd world developing countries, as well as national security issues when the resources are under Chinese/Russian direct or indirect control.
@@cliffc2546 and how many birds of prey these chopping fans kill every year and the ridiculous sound they make etc
@@urbanothepopeofdeath Statistics show that a vastly larger number of bird deaths are due to collisions with windows in buildings rather than the wind farms, UTPOD.
@@ljprep6250 so what you are saying is 300-500k birds are still killed by by wind farms, and buildings add another 500k + bird deaths a year.
@@gqrob28 "statistics"...
Some nice thoughts. But, I think it overlooks some of the costs (and carbon use) of operations. Especially, batteries have limited lives - eventually, they won't hold a charge. Before they are completely dead, they hold significantly less than their nominal charge. For conventional cars, this isn't an issue as long as the battery will start the engine. For hybrids, decreasing battery capacity will mean that the gasoline engine will operate more and more. For electric vehicles, vehicle range will decrease. At some point, the batteries will have to be replaced. The carbon cost of replacing a battery in a conventional car is very small, because the battery is very small. The carbon cost of replacing a battery in a hybrid is larger, because the battery is larger and uses more exotic materials. The carbon cost of replacing a battery in an electric vehicle is larger still, because the battery is much larger. I suspect that the whole life cycle carbon use, including battery replacement, is higher for electric cars. Switching to all-renewable electricity will neatly solve all these problems. Unfortunately, the record so far is that increasing renewables in electricity means that electricity becomes more expensive and less reliable, with fossil-fuel generation required to provide backup for intermittency. We may get to the renewable promised land, but we are a very long way.
That's hardly true, out of my german perspective i can say: watching renewable energy growing and become more and more a thing, means at the same time watching the prize for renewable energy going straight down, outcompeting even nuclear power. Today in germany, Solar Power ist the cheapest energy you can get. Expensive energy comes mostly from politics. Believe me, renewables are way better then their reputation, just let them grow and develop on the technical side. But i agree: it's still a long, but worthy to walk for sure.
@@kornelwojtkowiak9435 Does that trip to renewables include cutting and burning wood for available heat this winter in places around Europe? I think there is a problem there!
batteries demand one of the most scarce minerals on earth. also don't forget about the amount of co2 the machines use to exstract those minerals
Not all parts of new technologies develop or evolve at the same pace -- ESPECIALLY WHEN CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES HAVE FOR-PROFIT REASONS FOR STALLING AND BLOCKING. What's important is that we start, and solve challenges as we move forward.
@@chuckscholl9928 Sorry mate, but i dont see this thing happening here. Exept maybe for Ukrane right now, but that's ofc another topic. It's really more like people getting big solar installation to heat their outdoor pools with air-to-heat. Don't mean to brag, but that's the reality here.
There's no mention of taking arable land out of crop production to dedicate said land to wind and solar uses. Also, no mention of farm implements that requires a great deal of energy not only to till and harvest crops, but to get produce to local and international markets.
And no mention of the manufacturing costs of oil rigs. Your comment is utterly dishonest. Solar is often feasible - think deserts - where arable farming is not. Wind power production can be done in a manner that does not require taking land out of production. Not that you're biased or anything.
@@grahamnicholls6070dishonest? Here in Central Indiana we have thousands of windmills that sit on farmlands that once produced crops. Your response was not dishonest, but based on ignorance
@@grahamnicholls6070 good luck powering South America or Europe via desert sun. The cost, power loss and upkeep of sending the power back would far outweigh the potential benefits. Cleaning the vast array of cells that would be required power these places would also be another problem (regular dust storms in the desert). Nuclear (fission and fusion) is our only option.
they don’t TILL anymore haven’t for DECADES !
@@saugerriver5769 you are parsing words. Here in indiana farmers till their land and your reading comprehension is questionable.
He makes a good argument for the development of the electric horse
Lou suSi - Clever.... lol !!!!!
It's been done. Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, 1979.
@@williamwingo4740 Wasn't that "The Electric Cowboy"?
@@BryanArd62 "Electric Horseman." Also with Willie Nelson, Valerie Perrine, Wilford Brimley, and John Saxon. Also some great shots of Las Vegas before it got terminally overbuilt. Willie Nelson has the line that brings down the house, but I won't repeat it here....
Ie such as an electric scooter or bicycle with range of 10-20 miles for scooters and 30-60 miles for the bike. Horse has about the same range as the scooter for the average horse and about the same range as the bike when accustomed to the riding but the human on the bike would have to be conditioned as well.
Did not hear him mention the CO2 emitted during the whole process of getting the metals out of the ground when creating solar panels for the renewable energy. But this is a great start for a conversation on the topic.
😂
Interesting how he applied “inside the box” thinking to wind and solar. Totally agree with Sapper6N.
Yes, and all those metals that have to be mined,refined, machined, and transported to assembly plants to build the ICE based drive trains that require hundreds of parts.
@@makerspace533 Well said MakerSpace. I’d go a little further. Any man made thing has a negative environmental impact when it’s creation, use, support, maintenance and salvage are accounted for inside the box. Any “green” product description leaves me suspicious of motive.
Also renewable energy plants such as wind and solar do not last a long as traditional power plants. That being said conventional cars don't require power plants to fuel the car, only to manufacture. Conventional cars do however require fuel processing, but most of these drilling sites are already active. I would totally love to see another video comparing all of these other factors. Great video, lets keeps looking at all the factors before committing to electric. Others mentioned the impact on the ozone from the electric motor also.
6:22 "Solar generation rose 23% globally in 2021, while wind supply gained 14% over the same period. Together, both renewable sources accounted for 10.3% of total global electricity generation, up 1% from 2020, data from Ember showed." (Reuters 2022) “Renewables [will] become the largest source of global electricity generation by early 2025, surpassing coal,” the IEA said in its Renewables 2022 report. Earlier this year, a report from the International Energy Agency said clean energy investment could be on course to exceed $2 trillion per year by 2030, an increase of over 50% compared to today. (CNBC 12/6/2022)
I don’t know where you got these figures.The IEA reports that less than 4% of worldwide energy production comes from wind and solar.10% is energy still comes from wood.Your data is obviously inaccurate. These “renewable “ numbers come after worldwide expenditures of around 10 trillion dollars.This entire artificial industry will lead to the economic destruction of the West if it’s allowed to continue unabated.China and India continue their coal plant expansion and play no part in our virtue signaling idiocy except the supplying of our toys ,wind and solar manufacturing,and flooding the market with BEV’s that can’t be given away.
He's missed the point that the corvette DOES CYCLE Co2 and O2. An internal combustion engine requires O2 in order to burn fuel.
Exactly
Didn't see any consideration of the C02 cost of retrieving, refining and transporting the fuel for normal ICE vehicles? Having worked in the marine Oil industry, I can tell you that's a fair amount to take into consideration. There is also the consideration of generating electricity on large scale vs small scale usage of fuel. I live and work in Norway, where all electric power is generated from hydro electric sources (so that flattens out the graph for electric cars quite drastically, cutting down the CO2 crossover point with ICE cars to somewhere between 2 to 4 years of usage) - which I know is a luxury situation (Norway has over half of Europe's hydro capacity I believe) The gas and oil produced in this country is mainly exported to other countries for them to burn ;-), with the exception of the fuel refined for all forms of transport (road vehicles, air transport and shipping) - although a lot of money and energy has recently been put into coming up with a gas power plant with CO2 scrubbers. My personal opinion is that the electric motor is the way to go for small vehicles, but batteries are maybe not the power source we should be using. Hydrogen is the fuel that should be the focus, but unfortunately the current ways of utilising it are expensive to manufacture, require elaborate storage solutions and quantities of rare metals in the fuel cells (which hinders mass production). Battery technology is currently advancing at a healthy rate, so I don't see hydrogen tech attracting the necessary big bucks (until a 'eureka' breakthrough happens in any case). Most renewable sources of energy that are being invested in are also intermittent sources (solar, wind) which will only be effective when combined with an energy storage solution (which in most cases is looking like battery storage at the moment). I personally don't understand why more money isn't being put into geothermal and infra red energy harvesting, as these both have the potential to provide a constant stream of energy 24/7
"There is also the consideration of generating electricity on large scale vs small scale usage of fuel" There is also battery charging/discharging losses to consider. The thermal problem with batteries needing their own cooling system is its own efficiency drain on electric cars - both the battery losses and the cooling system power + weight. "I personally don't understand why more money isn't being put into geothermal and infra red energy harvesting" 1) Geothermal will get a boosted by a move to use gyrotrons (like magnetrons for megawatt power output) to increase drilling efficiency for reaching the much deeper super hot rock layer that most of the world (outside the active geological zones) needs for viable geothermal power - this drops the price of drilling to about $500k instead of $millions. 2) Infra red energy harvesting is already utilised in some variants of solar power, specifically thermophotovoltaic cells which have an extra layer of energy harvesting material to absort IR which is reflected back when the main PV cell heats up from absorbing bandwidths of light it cannot convert.
I like norways approach to using hydro. Sadly here the intent is on demolishing our dam systems. And everybody is afraid of nuclear, so we’re sold the idea that solar and wind are adequate. Nobody seems to be approaching reservoir or mass-based energy storage and only wants to talk about batteries. It’s like they think the sun and wind are always there and batteries just pop out of a factory with no environmental repercussions. I almost don’t even think it’s about clean energy anymore.
He also did not factor in the cost of building renewable generated power, or the cost of maintaining an electricity network, or the energy cost to transmit electricity, or the fact that the batteries currently being used in our electric cars will only last for around 60,000 miles.
@@mnomadvfx there was a company that had a working prototype IR panel about 10 years ago, using micro antennae. I haven't seen anything about it for a long time - it was shown on a program about transmitting energy wirelessly
I just wrote a comment on exactly the same problem. And there's also the thing where he artifically inflated the CO2 costs of an electric vehicle by insisting that it needs to have a 400 mile range.
Great talk. I'm disappointed that you didn't talk about how challenging it is to recycle all of the toxic elements inside the batteries. What a huge oversight.
It isn't challenging at all recycling batteries uses less than 5% of the energy that mining the materials does and is a simple well understood process.
Can't these batteries be reused?
@@joshuarhoades5569 Yes, but its less expensive to landfill them. So what do you think happens to them?
@@robertportillo7723 Landfill them? Sounds like a problem
@@joshuarhoades5569 yes they can and they are
"We should wait until EV are really Zero emissions" This reminds me of the joke: A person bought shoes that are a little tight and the salesman told him that they will stretch over the next few weeks so he refuse to wear them for a few weeks until they stretch.
Please update the description to include the data sources used in the presentation.
I think most are common knowledge or Google.
@@lyerger8232 No, they come out of his rear end. He doesn't cite studies, because every study shows the opposite of what he's claiming: cradle to grave comparisons show EVs produce less greenhouse emissions than ICE vehicle, even counting manufacturing (which yes, is worse for EVs). It's a terrible talk.
That's your opinion. " because every study shows the opposite ". Show your source. @@markw4206
This video reminds me of something similar: recycling. Recycling was designed to make people feel better about over consuming products. The recycled materials are sometimes shipped long distances creating a penalty. Similar marketing strategy to sell a product that makes people feel good.
if recycling were more resource-efficient, it woiuld reflect in prices. but there's no economic incentive to recycle, only political
Interesting observation
we literally just tip plastics collected in recycling trucks down mine shafts in Australia no other country will accept it and the Australian ones that were claiming to recycle were just stockpiling and then illegally dumping
@@JReklis suspicious fires break out in recycling plants from time to time
@@JReklis only use for plastics is to burn them to power recycling plants that can and will process other actually recyclable goods.
Best I’ve seen on E vs F. I would like to see an analysis on battery disposal added to this. In 6 - 10 years we are going to be dealing with a massive problem here.
It's not about E vs F anymore. We need to understand that we cannot afford the amount of personal transport we are using right now.
It is called recycling, it is up to 98% recovery of all minerals. Today, not down the line.
Ditto
@@MyUniversalUniversity exactly, but how many current batteries are recyclable?
It won’t be our problem .we out scource our problems nowadays .
How does the Electric car fires effect these results ? Or do they only produce non polluting fires ?
Seems like there is a recycling component at the end that is missing from the analysis? How much co2 is used to recondition a vehicle as it may be advantageous from the electric auto
I absolutely agree that the energy / pollution / CO2 equation for electric vehicles has to include the source of the energy that powers the vehicle. What I didn't hear you say is that the same should be done for fuel burning vehicles. The petrol (gasoline) or diesel fuel you put into your car didn't magically appear in the tanks of the gas station. The energy costs, pollution and emissions of oil exploration, oil well construction, pipeline construction, pumping, shipping, refining, road transport etc all have to be added to the emissions "produced" by your Internal Combustion car, in the same way you ask that the emissions from power stations should be added to the electric vehicles' emissions. Also, if you want to point out (correctly) that in many parts of the world, electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, then you also have to consider that there is a lot of electricity inherent in each gallon of gasoline or diesel. Research the electricity consumption of oil refineries (absolutely huge), realise that liquid fuels are often pumped with electrically powered pumps etc. One university study concluded that the amount of electricity inherent in a gallon of gasoline would drive an electric car at least half the distance that the liquid fuel would drive an internal combustion car. So yes, look at the whole picture for electric vehicles, but also look at the whole picture for internal combustion cars, hydrogen cars and all alternatives. I drive (and love) an electric car, but I have solar panels and live in New Zealand where over 80% of our electricity comes from renewable resources, especially at night when the vast majority of electric cars are charged.
There are studies that prove that the CO2 produced for manufacturing processes for cars with petrol/diesel engines versus battery operated cars are similar. So the CO2 produced is less with the electric car.
Excellent response to this video which has a very misleading & much too narrow perspective.
I get 6.5 to 7 L/100 with my Outback in Alberta by driving to conserve instead of 10 or 29 k above the limit. This guy is correct, in the future for most people when tech is higher.
If only everything was true.
Its a bs steel man of ice vehicles and has no basis in reality... AI will be able to scan all this documentation and hold all these people responsible one day.
Excellent talk. Only thing is he never mentioned the toxic waste lakes generated by mining the rare earth minerals required to make the electrical components of electronics. This needs to be solved as well.
Have you seen a gold mine? Or a coal mine? Talk about scorched earth.
Missing a ton of things actually, like what it takes to make 'renewables' like solar etc. Solar isn't actually a good thing at all in how we currently build them. Also those batteries in both solar systems and electric cars are not recyclable so no one is talking about the waste generated from them. All in all conventional cars and conventional energy are actually better for the environment than any of these 'renewable' and 'green' alternatives.
@@haitchteeceeeightnineeight5571 Nothing like lithium mining which takes 500,000 gallons of water to mine one metric ton of lithium. How long before all that leeches into soil and waterways?
@@pylotlight How many batteries (that are not recyclable) will a electric car need to make it on the roads 20 years? I have a 2000 lexus and a 2003 acura both still on the road to this day all original with 200k miles + lets see this from an electric vehicle
Cobalt (a necessary element for EVs) is a blood metal in the Congo, the world largest sourse of it. China owns the most mines in the DRC, by far. There's a YT video by WION.
You should search for earth batteries. You can make them with soil or water. The soil has to be moist. Use two different materials for your terminals like copper and aluminum. Make the earth battery in series. These are cheap easy volts to build. Roughly one volt per cell. Then to get your amps, wire a solar panel to the earth battery in parallel. You will have all the cheap green electricity you could ever want.
What about the surplus electricity that the power plants are producing. The CO2 is being produced regardless of the electricity used, and since I've not had a brown out in 20 years, I think they are making more electricity than we are using...... so where does that energy go? So if I plug an electric car into the grid, Am I making the plant produce more CO2, or am I just storing the electricity that they are already producing?
I’ve always said, “If electric fits your lifestyle, it can be great. But if you think it’s saving the planet, you’re mis informed.”
Right? I don't own a home where I can charge my car when I get home from work every night. I would have to micro manage my days to allocate time to charge my car a reasonable amount without wasting too much time. Could you imagine sitting in a gas station dribbling the gas into your tank over the course of half an hour or more?
I've never met an electric car driver/owner who thought they were "saving the planet". That's the hyperbole used to discount their contribution, which I feel this TedTalk doesn't give suffiient credence. They are early adopters encouraging the innovation to improve our energy production and usage so we can get to where the TedTalk wants us to get to. If no-one was buying electric cars, we wouldn't even be having this discussion or hearing this TedTalk. Far less money would be spent on battery cell technologies. The early adopters are suffering the range anxiety, the increased vehicle costs, and the worst iteration of such vehicles (since future versions will obviously be far improved), but even in just 10 years we've made good strides, and its thanks in part to those early adopters. That has been the intent of those I've spoken to (as well as not caring so much when gas gets to $7 per gallon). So while I agree with this TedTalk, AND I own a hybrid that I love, I also appreciate the electric car owners that essentially took one for the team to help get this ball rolling. Hybrids have only come along as well as they have because of the R&D into electric vehicles. I'm very happy with my 650-mile range 2019 hybrid. I may not be driving an electric vehicle next, but I certainly won't be driving a pure gas guzzler ever again. The revolution has begun.
he literally just gave a presentation about why electric cars are way more efficient, but just said the wrong conclusion at the end. also car c02 is in a cycle, fossil fuels are not in a cycle because they are hundreds of millions of years old and will not be turned into such a dense form of carbon that's so well stored underground such that it doesn't disrupt our ecosystem.
It's not really about saving the planet. It's more about rich cities moving the pollution from the tailpipe to the power station which will be located in poor areas.
@@GaryBox what a dystopic and unjustifiable opinion you have there. Really? You think city planners got together and said "goody goody goody, let's dump some smog on the ol' poor folks"? Do you know how much cleaner an EV is than a gas car? Are you aware every gas car pumps literal poison out the tailpipe, which is worse in the cities? Why don't you give your finger to the oil companies that want you to keep subsidizing their business?
I've said this for years. And working in the field of producing EV batteries I see another problem and that is recycling of the batteries. Once glued and welded together they are almost impossible to get apart without destroying them. Creates an awful lot of work in trying to recycle. One that requires cheap labor. And that means shipping them back to where they were created. And how do you measure the amount of CO2 created in all of the shipping of the batteries from the raw materials to the production of the cells to the shipping of the cells to the production of the battery packs and then shipping the packs to the auto manufactures? These things are heavy. They need a lot of space and special handling. And at the end of the cycle you want to recycle them? That requires even more shipping and special handling. I've always said that the green is in the money it makes and nothing else.
And ocean liners produce more pollution than anything.
Money is king, and unless or until that changes, nothing else will, - unless there is a lot of money to be made from it!
I think it'd be nice if more companies could would make the batteries easily disassemble-able...like the Leaf. Maybe the new 4680s will enable that. That being said, we're a long way from battery recycling being an issue. Used EV batteries still pull in quite a premium because of the diy market.
@@willburk you can always reuse the modules. It's the modules that are glued and welded. That's were the diy market comes in. The issue is that once those go you have no other choice but to try and take them apart to recycle. The pack is made up of many modules. For instance on a new SUV we used 2 layers increasing the storage from the standard ones which are anywhere from 80 to 140 kwh to 208 kwh. This is accomplished by just adding an additional layer of modules.
@@ericaarseth7811 OMG, I think you might be right! Have you contacted the media about this? If you could just get on the Ed Sullivan Show and explain it to America, we might be able to solve the problems. Elon Musk said he was going to fix the problems, but then he di'nt. I was very disappointed about that. But I really think you're onto something brilliant with the "money" angle. I heard one of those nice ladies on The View mention it, but she di'nt really go into detail. This story could really blow the lid off the Deep State! I'm not gonna be able to sleep tonight...
Thank you...
Thank you. We were considering a plug-in EV. We chose a comfortable sedan with avg 44mph and 52mpg in the city - most of our driving. The easily-recycled battery pack weighs about 36 kilograms / 80lbs. It can be DIY replaced in an hour for about US $2000.
Don't do it. The push for EVs has nothing to do with the environment. It doesn't even make a difference. The electricity that you charge your vehicle with is produced in a power plant that is powered by.....FOSSIL FUELS.
@@jonathanstill4701my electricity comes from a nuclear power plant. Try again.
@SpykerSpeed Ah my dear friend,.you are so mercifully free from the ravages of intelligence. Idk where you're from, professor marvel, but I'm from the US & in the US less than 19% of our electricity is generated from nuclear power. A small percentage is hydro-electric, wind & solar & the rest is....any guesses, smart guy?
@@jonathanstill4701 If you consider 21.5% small, then your statement is technically correct. But your implication is that it's minuscule. BTW - Nuclear production is 18.2% ... so the combine non-CO2 emitting electric production is nearly 40%. And the mix is changing all the time with solar and wind contribution a larger percentage of the mix every year.
what brand is it?
I have a problem though. I love what he said, right up to his talk about renewables, wind and solar. He doesn't apply the same penalty CO2 to bring those entities to market.
@John Dulio How much CO2 released in building a nuclear plant?
@John Dulio The only question that answers is the way we always did it. Q: "Do we know if this new product will cause harm to the earth in the future?" A: "No. We will have nuclear waste. It's dangerous and we don't know what to do with it exactly except store it for the next few years." Q: "Do we care?" A: "No, let's go!"
@@4nz-nl Nuclear waste can be used to produce many useful things like ammo and export products.
@@gabbymcgibson984 yes, many useful things, depleted uranium ammunition, nuclear weapons. The CO2 emissions from a limited nuclear exchange destroying, say, five cities, should probably factor into the equation.
@@seabirdsolar We must figure out a way to cycle it. Possibly trap it in a food supply aquaponic system.
This always seems like a taboo, but what about investing in nuclear energy? Wind and solar are great, but they require an exponential amount of land conversion to generate the same amount of energy as a nuclear power plant. They also require some rare earth materials (particularly solar) and they don't last as long as other power plants. I know nuclear is scary because of Chernobyl and Fukushima, but I think it's time for us to have serious discussion about this form of energy.
Nuclear energy is the obvious answer, send the waste to the moon or mars or China...
The first nuclear power plants were invented in the 1950’s. By the 1970’s the U.S.A. stopped building them, because they were dangerous (3 mile island). So, they stopped building them around 20 years from conception, won’t build new ones with technology and safety improvements made in the last 50 years, thus 70 years since inception. And they weren’t so bad that they tore them all down. I don’t see the logic. Yes existing plants have a had some improvements but that’s not at the same level as better designs from scratch. Proof in the pudding: France is mostly nuclear powered and has had no major incidents. Another topic is to make smaller nuclear plants that are much easier to manage in the event of an incident. It’s not like half the size is half the danger, I think it’s closer to exponential than 1:1. More smaller plants distributes generation, lesser affects of a plant going offline, shorter distances (which create loss), etc. I read an article on Wikipedia about micro nuke plants the size of a truck that can be operated remotely for underdeveloped countries. So, imho there is a lot of merit to your inquiry and a lot of information and technology developed in the last 50 out of 70 years.
Nuclear is the only alternative. Wind and solar don't work, because grid storage batteries don't exist.
@@chrisidema They exist it is just at that scale and the current level of tech are great big toxic waste bombs waiting to go off.
@@kenkoehler594 I often wonder if governments consider nuclear plants as easy, catastrophic targets during war, and therefore don't want to build them.
What about salt batteries, that were used around the times of the Great Exhibitions ie the beginning of the 20C? Tky
Am i missing something or a big part of resoning is based on the idead that if you need to travel more miles (like 400 in his example) you need a bigger battery, and then you are more polluant than an gas car. But what about ... recharging mid trip like every EV user is used to do alleready ? It basically means taking a 20 min break every two hour, so something you would do anyway. Am i misunderstanding something ? FYI i am french so i am probably wrong ...
Thank you for explaining this. Ive been thinking weve been moving towards fully electric everything far too quickly myself and keep trying to explain to people why but havnet had the knowledge..
The TED speaker's information applies to an EV with a 125mile range. That means it isn't a Tesla. Every Tesla has 200mile+ range. Teslas have more efficient motors and batteries so they use a smaller battery to produce a longer range. This is true even 2 years ago when Conway made this speech and batteries have come a long way since then. The EV revolution is here. EVs are better than ICE cars in pretty much every way, except for long road trips where charging will take longer than filling up with gas. It doesn't matter who gets involved to speed up or slow down the transition to EVs. There are countless websites and videos on youtube where you can learn about the pros and cons of EVs.
don't rely on this guy! He doesn't know half of what is out there now, and is just trying to create a name for himself with his false claims!
@@Hardwaregeekx 200 mile range means bigger batteries more carbon to produce. tesla vehicles do not use any parts that are not used by other manufacturers. tesla hasn't created any new technology, thats just spin.
@@Hardwaregeekx tesla also recycles all their batteries at the end of life. Also his button hypothetical doesn’t make sense bc you can’t have the tech without the infrastructure. And the infrastructure enables technology to succeed. So if you can’t have one without the other then it’s a bad example. Id push that button every time. Here’s a button changes all your horses into cars and then what? It doesn’t make sense. The competition driving evs now will make batteries more efficient through the need to sell vehicles. In 10 years newly manufactured ice cars will be exotics. Using California as a barometer, as the industry does, last year tesla took 2 of the top 5 slots for most cars sold losing just barely to Toyota. Electric vehicles are spreading so fast and nobody should be slowing them down based on his charts we should be speeding them up. Oh and go nuclear. Get over the fear and just go nuclear asap. This whole anti nuclear thing has gone too far. It’s safer, cleaner, more efficient than any other form of generating electricity and it’s not used out of stupidity.
@@TaylerMade you’ve obviously never been in a Tesla or driven one to say that “they have created no new technology” that’s a statement born of ignorance.
"Birth to Scrap" is an engineering concept that should also include the CO2 (and $$ cost) impact of the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines materials & manufacturing). ALL facets of energy production/usage need to have an accounting in order to truly appreciate the electric car global impact
And the end-to-end costs of the use of fossil fuels, funny how you forget to mention those.
@@grahamnicholls6070 The point is not mutually exclusive as you appear to presume. Failure to mention the one should not necessarly lead to a conclusion that the poster was ignoring the other. In environmental engineering cradle-to-grave is a "GIVEN" and it's not defined by a person's (perceived) biases of winners or losers - it applies to all that is relevant to the topic.
People need to stop falling for the "OOOH, CO2 is a villain!" CO2 feeds everything on earth.
@@clivephillips4021 plant life is essential to feed animal life, if an animal doesn't eat plants it eats another animal that does, that's the food chain. Plants need CO2 as much as animals need oxygen. At times in the earth's history the CO2 level in the atmosphere was far higher than it is now, these periods saw very abundant growth of plant life and this is what reduced the atmospheric levels of CO2 to what we see now. It is very important that the tropical rain forests be preserved as these are the world's oxygen factory, this factor is not talked about in the global warming debate as these mostly third world countries would object. The warming crowd complains that the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro in tropical Africa are disappearing, when the mountain was surrounded by a rain forest that supplied the waters to make the snow, that forest has been depleted by uncontrolled logging and the use of wood as a cooking fuel in Africa, bring the forest back and the snow will return, stay on the current path and the Sahara will get larger.
He tells us to view the EV as a whole yet he didn't account for Co2 emissions of processing a barrel of oil to gasoline. One barrel of oil to gas (42 gallons) produces 520 pounds of Co2 (237kg)
You forgot to add the CO2 produced making solar panels (they dont use sand...CDTe solar panels may be hazardous due to cadmium. Gallium arsenide (GaAs) panels may be hazardous due to arsenic) and Wind Turbines (e.g. the blades are fibreglass and the base typically requires 130 to 240 m3 of concrete ....which is typically produced by burning coal......). Taking these into consideration..How much does that change your graph ?
Thank you for making this point. His new box for measuring CO2 doesn’t include the resources needed to make, maintain, & replace “green” energy sources. When you include those, there is no electric energy future and the eclectic one will likely include more horses. 😮
Steven you may well be correct when you say “…there is no electric energy future…” though when you also include the environmental damage and resources needed to make and maintain fossil fuel energy sources, then the suns energy effects are far less damaging in comparison. Air pollution in Australia alone is estimated to cost $11billion/year and if you put a price on the estimated number of deaths caused by air pollution alone that figure doubles.
@dondevine Also the end of life cycle (approx every 20 years) pollution of wind turbines and solar panels societal cost to recycle, demolish, landfill etc. These costs are huge and are always left out of these discussions.
@@elrolo3711 No one has yet mentioned the environmental damage of disposing of the useless/old/'dead' battery. Building facilities that contain the seepage of chemicals from the battery into the soil?
@@elrolo3711 It's funny that the fossil fuel advocates so often point at the end-of-life costs of green technologies; but never at the externalities for fossil fuel generation. Of course, fossil fuel extraction has zero cost to the environment. Clearing up old coal mines is simple - just cover the hole with a lid, and we're done. The old argument was "solar is expensive"; stay with fossil. Compare that with nuclear, which is the most expensive form of energy generation once development - and more importantly, cleanup and contingency - costs are factored in. Solar, after some development cost, is the cheapest form of generation. Offshore wind, and tidal need more investment, and also the creation of storage infrastructure, which will be expensive, of course, but what are we to do anyway when the oil runs out, and the planet is so hot that we expend ever more energy in simply moving heat energy from where it is undesirable? Simply crying that "renewable energy has externalities" is utterly disingenuous, or merely uninformed, but in either case is wrong.
What he doesn't say is the CO2 on his car examples isn't showing how much Co2 goes into the engine first. He should show the difference.
I always love the fact that this comparisons bring up the CO2 created producing electricity but never account for the CO2 produced refining and transporting gasoline.
Absolutely! This part of the equation seems to be forgotten more than anything else.
It also doesn't take into account the amount of co2 created in the manufacture of every and their batteries.
@@ksteiger and the giant holes in the earth mining materials for this..
Yes, his analysis is flawed based on the omission of an assessment of the carbon generated drilling and distributing fossil fuels
That's assuming CO2 is bad. guess what plants need it to survive and at the preindustrial levels plants were starving for food (CO2) that's why commercial greenhouses BURN NATURAL GAS to pump CO2 into their greenhouses to make their plants grow better LOL. . Well about your argument how about the CO2 for all transporting digging up the rare earth minerals for the batteries... shipping the rare earth minerals to china to make the batteries , shipping the batteries somewhere to make the cars shipping the cars back to the US or wherever, transporting the let's say Teslas to the show room .... burning the coal to power the Tesla to drive on the asphalt made from oil, to use the stoplights, powered by coal , dug from the ground, shipped by train, using a diesel , to a coal fired power plant that Jack built, so that Elon can shoot rockets into the air for joyrides that produce untold amounts of CO2 AND pollutants, built on the kids in the Congo with cobalt lung. good day
I would like the same talk on wind farms and solar arrays to the amount we use.
The most efficient solar capture devices are plants (vegetation), and the efficiency would be increased if the CO2 levels were higher.
@John Dulio yup
Watch the documentary “ planet of the humans” .
Michael Shellenberger has a tedx talk on exactly that and lo and behold, they aren’t great either. Nuclear power is the answer
Nobody is stopping you except yourself.
Very well said and the best part is it's the absolute TRUTH!
Tell me that you have no experience in the auto/diesel industry without telling me that you have no experience in the field
@@jorgecabrera3694 hahahaha. If you only knew.
@@bobbycone2 I do know. I'm a mechanic with a background in auto/diesel and aviation.
@@jorgecabrera3694 I meant if you only knew about me.
based off this graph the cars that run on petrol ICE have 52+ MPG please tell me what brand of car does have that kind of mileage?!?!?! I need to by this type of car ASAP!
Only way to be completely accurate is to start from the ground up when producing the vehicles/engines/batteries and then as well from the ground up producing, refining and transporting the fuel/electricity to the point of where it gets used, also the products/services related to maintaining each type.
If you do that, then count all the wars fought over oil and gas. And the consequences of the wars (e.g. starvation resulting from the Russian 'special operation'). Add in oil spills, air pollution, oil pipelines, etc.
@@chrismartin7579 Also take into account petroleum is used extensively in building and operating electric cars.
If they really cared about the environment they would legislate a minimum of at least 10years durability on all consumer products
INDEED
Instead of legislating the duration of durability, why not consider a model where the manufacturer of "durable" goods takes back and legally disposes of the product when it reaches the end of its useful like. One such model is where consumers would buy the service the product performs but not the product itself - the product would continued to be "owned" by the company that produced it. When it ceases to perform the service purchased that company would take it back and dispose of it.
How about you make these products yourself see how that works out. As you sit around your house or apartment surrounded by all the goods you own that were produced with the help of fossil fuels. Not to mention the grid that’s powering your computer , lights Tv, stove , fridge, etc., etc, etc, Thank You, John D. Rockefeller for providing us with cheap abundant fossil fuel.
Sure, make the " government" more of a baby sitter.
Or stop killing people who make engines that run on hydrogen.....
C02 is not the only component that goes out from a combustion engine, is like saying a cigarrette has only nicotine. Also solid state batteries are coming very soon and with different materials. I read a study that mesured real pollution from combustion engines on a big city… and it was simply impressive the amount and type of particles that combustion engines were producing. Also producing petrol and transporting it constantly is not environmentally friendly.
@Colgateras Yes, in fact a study showed solar panels in places like Delhi are likely to increase output by 10-12% as fossil fuel use decreases.
GREAT !!!!!!!!!!!!
Might have been mentioned before, but the steel needed to make a single wind turbine for energy uses about 400 tons of non-renewable steel, and the CO2 emissions from processing that steel into sheets and blades is unaccounted for in the graph. Solar is only about 18% efficient, and probably won't ghet any more efficient until a new superconductor material is found that makes converting thermal energy into electricity much more efficient. The other cost of lithium batteries is that once the batteries are exhausted, they become a huge contaminating pile of environmental waste that cannot be dealt with using current tech. Not to mention all the child labor used to mine lithium in countries where child labor laws are not nearly as strict.
If you read the IPCC analysis of GHG emissions you would know that solar produces about 48g/kWh hydro is 24g/kWh and wind is 12g/kWh. Also, what is non renewable steel, exact y?
OMG is this a Toyota shill? The answer isn't any specific type of private cars, it is public transit, micro transport and bikes. This talk misses the whole point.
or we can just invest into train NOW.
You should also mention the thousands of endangered birds and animals killed by wind turbines and solar collectors, as well as acreage no longer available for agriculture and food production.
@@reaality3860 Why, as it happens I was at one of our local turbines a few months ago. It was quite early in the morning, and I had to wade through knee high piles of birds because the guy who normally cleans up the night kill had not done that yet. Oh wait, I made that up. Just like you did...
We here in the U.S. can expound all we want on how to solve "Climate change", but until the majority of other large polluters in the world join us it will be for naught. Wind borne Emissions know no geographical boundaries. For example: If i live on a street with many houses and we all have big yards and large trees. When the Fall comes my trees drop there leaves. I go out and rake them up so my yard is nice and clean. However, my neighbors don't care as much as I do, so as soon as the Wind blows my yard is full of leaves again. I can repeat my behavior over and over, but until my neighbors agree to clean all of our yards, my efforts will have a limited effect. Let's not forget this before we try to mandate or legislate ourselves needlessly.
We have the same argument in New Zealand but both our countries have some of the worst emissions per capita in the world.
Can't argue, except to say the polluting countries will not feel any pressure to "clean up" until clean becomes the norm. If no one takes the first step then the solution will never come.
Who built the van?
I enjoy it when they compare electric vehicles to petrol ones, but they always seem to miss a significant aspect: how is the petrol produced? I would like to see the entire process and the costs involved in extracting oil, transporting it to refineries by boats or trucks, and, upon completion, using trucks to transport it to service stations.
well well well, how are the freakin batteries produced pal???
Hey mate, that's another important aspect to put into the equation. I would like to see a video where all aspects of production, maintenance, and end-of-life for these products are compared. By this, I mean all the money spent on research, extraction, etc., for battery materials, including all the associated ecological damage, and the same goes for the production of both electric and internal combustion engines. In short, with concrete data, which of the two is ultimately less polluting?@@wrends
yeah, and how about the energy loss on the power lines? and the maintenance, spare parts for the power lines?
@@RidwanRidwan-tq7rxyeah that’s another valid point! I would love to see a complete study about it! And how they produce the electricity, what’s the cost involved etc.
CO2 from the corvette is also absorbed by plants and converted to O2, thus the greening of the planet. Atmospheric CO2 ppm continued to rise during the Covid-19 lockdown period of reduced admissions as reflected in the raw data. This happened due to mostly oceanic off-gasing, but assisted by other natural causes such as increased global volcanic activity. EV transportation simply does not have the grid capacity to support meaningful integration on a global scale.
Plants prefer horse CO2. But that’s covered in another video…
Plants do not know if care where the CO2 comes from anymore than we would care where the oxygen we need for metabolism comes from. This is such a complicated, multifactorial and global problem that one “solution” is not gonna solve it. An eclectic approach is the one that will allow us to adapt to whatever happens. I do agree w him on that!👍🏼
The more the co2 the better it seems...we could actually make ourselves plants and animals larger by increasing co2 emissions - the more co2 a plant processes the more oxygen it produces...
Yes
And Corvettes also breathe O2
Plants absorb CO2 however that is produced. If they absorb the CO2 from a billion horses, they also absorb the CO2 from a billion corvettes. Of course, the corvette doesn't eat plants, so we land with more or bigger plants. This is well recorded to be happening.
your third sentence is confusing, I'm not really sure what your stance is lol. but the concept of the CO2 in horses being in a cycle that the CO2 from corvettes is not, is derived from the corvette CO2 coming from the ground, a closed system, but is now in the open atmosphere, increasing the overall amount of gasses filling our air and increasing the burden we put on plants to convert it to oxygen.
Additionally, a combustion engine releases Carbon MONOXIDE not Carbon Dioxide. CO = not good - CO² = Fourth building block of life itself.
@@isaacringling3823 A part is a reasoning that falls in the category of CO2 capturing. But CO2 only stays captured in the wooden parts of trees if we don't let the plants die and rot (that releases almost all the CO2!). So every year the amount of excess CO2 needs to be captured by new planted trees. Died trees should be shot to Mars (to there create a biosphere) in a CO2-free rocket 😄 The other part is that higher levels of CO2 give raise to plants absorbing more CO2 (larger plants). But as plants die, it doesn't help to reduce the effective CO2.
Unless heat and drought kill the plants…….
@@JohanHaspeslagh what are houses made from?
Strong valid points, glad you made this video to clear up the understanding of Co2 emissions.
I can’t figure out what side this guy is on.
Let's not forget that once the life of the car is over, the battery still works. Maybe at 60-70% but that's enough to be used for many more years to store renewable energy. And one day, when it's really over, that battery will be recycled at +95% (more closely to 99% since it will happen in 20+ years). No need to mine those rare earth elements again, they are right there in the battery and ready to be put into the next one. We cannot all go electric all at once, but if you can, go ahead, you're paving the way for a greener future.
Using recycled batteries is cheaper & better for the environment, but also, as the tech has moved on, you'll probably get much more range from the same amount of matetials.
"But not today". It's not about waiting until everything else provides the perfect environment for EVs, it's about making small, incremental progress on a lot of fronts. At some point, you find that a lot of progress has been made on many fronts.
Just let the free market determine their progress. No government subsidies.
@@bluedog562: The Pilgrims Gov. Thomas Bradford discovered that principle in the 1620's! I.E. government playing God brought only death & disharmony ! Then ha switched to a Free Market economy, and the rest was history, tell today's back to the 1620's all over again like déjà vu!
@@bluedog562 OK. Let’s stop subsidizing oil then. Oil and gas receive faaar more money than EVs. You want the market to be free, yeah?
@@jonathanfields4ever absolutely. No corporate subsidies or bail outs.
@@bluedog562 Alright. I appreciate the consistency.
References please. Especially for the CO2 requirements for vehicle and Battery Pack construction.
It is easy to talk about numbers, needs the facts to support it.
His numbers are totally exaggerated to help his claim, which is why you see no sources.
But before references he needs to talk about the CO2 created of drilling oil, transporting it, refining it, and transporting it again.
@@Sam-gf1eb yes! And the environmental damage of oil spills.
and then there's the total energy output required to mine, manufacture and maintain solar and wind farms.. not to mention what happens to these sources when they all degrade..
Very good talk - would be interesting to see another discussion that relates to "job creation" and the EV auto - i.e. what is the net effect going forward. Also, aspects like" - How much cheaper is it to operate an EV auto before and after the "break even" point? - What "advancement" would have to take place in battery technology to make the EV auto a winner?
@charliemurphy Though public transit is even more important, EVs are a crucial solution to climate catastrophe & our pollution crisis. We have to renewablize our energy & to do that most primary energy has to be electrified.(Clothesline paradox energy like passive solar heated & cooled buildings). It costs about the same throughout the life of an EV except for the minimal maintenance costs. (It’s much cheaper to run an EV than an ICEV, & fuel costs are almost certain to get cheaper as renewables are added to the grid.) While there may be some small increase in maintenance as it gets older, the “break even point” isn’t any kind of dividing line.
He tells us to view the EV as a whole yet he didn't account for Co2 emissions of processing a barrel of oil to gasoline. One barrel of oil to gas (42 gallons) produces 520 pounds of Co2 (237kg)
What will happen to food production when all CO2 is removed from the atmosphere since all plants use CO2 to help it produce food and oxygen so how is our lives going to be with little to no food production ???
@@waynemeyer9694 📎 It looks like you’re writing unsubstantiated nonsense. Would you like to turn on all caps?
@Charles None.
Isn't the Co2 put out by the Corvette, in fact, in the same (Co2 scrubbing) "cycle" with the plants as the horse?
Yes. Exactly
@@MarkNOTW This seems to big a huge hole in the logic. But no-one except 330capt seems to notice this.
@@CristerRingkvist yes, apparently the atmosphere is capable of distinguishing
As a Corvette owner, I am glad to learn it is as eco friendly as a horse.
And yet it produces several hundred horsepower. How cool is that?
Well, you didn't learn anything then, because it isn't :)
Your Corvette has 400+ horsepower; yet, it only emits as much carbon dioxide as one horse does - that's amazing! :D Celebrate modern internal combustion engines! They haven't even reached their full potential yet... o.O
@@yareksad there might be a TED talk on sarcasm out there for you :D
@@sloreo8278 I am very sarcastic, but not this time. It’s clearly explained in the video that co2 exhaled by a horse is naturally recycled therefore it’s environmentally friendly and co2 from the cars isn’t.
Another factor that he failed to include would be the life span of those batteries in the cars/solar system and the disposing of them after they are replaced. Not to mention the chemicals used in the use of solar panels and disposing of them after their life span.
Solar panel recycling is already done very well in Europe. So it is possible, no obstacle there. Battery recycling is indeed much harder but there already are companies doing it. But most importantly, after EV batteries degrade enough to need replacing they still have enough capacity to be used for grid storage. So they can have a much longer lifespan then the car itself.
@@walterschwarz29 unfortunately recycling is a hoax as well as using old batteries for grid storage. It's a fantasy, not realistic, no rules or laws will change this. Electric vehicles have a place but they will not replace a diesel nor gas motor, with gas motors becoming more efficient, albeit more than an electric motor in some cases, and types of diesel becoming cleaner as well as electrics not having the range of diesel as well as making that electricity does and will produce pollution. Can't have it both ways and you're blind if you don't look at the WHOLE PICTURE.
@@walterschwarz29 recycling also uses lots of chemicals for leeching and separation and lots of energy as well. Recycling is not a green process.
1) The cells in the battery from an electric are still useful after it is no longer suitable for a car, those batteries can be repurposed such as in stationary storage. They do not need to be 'disposed'. 2) Over 90% of the materials in those batteries can be recovered and reused. And this can be done more cheaply than mining new materials. They do not need to be disposed. Please remind me how much of car exhaust can be recovered and reused.
But you are ignoring the fact that there is already solid state batteries being made by Toyota that get rid of the environmental impact almost all together. the production of EV's will get cleaner while Petrol cars won't change much. Also the battery life of an EV is far longer already then the general lifespan of a Petrol car. If we take the usual 300KM as write off point you can already fit 3 petrol cars in the distance of an EV. so that changes the whole game a lot.
What I can say is there is a tipping point and we can only extend of the deadlines for the tipping point 👉
One problem with this talk is Graham doesn't define the hybrid vehicle he is talking about. Is it a hybrid like a Prius, or a Plug in Hybrid like the Chevy Volt? Huge difference in fuel usage.
Although this guy clearly understands the issues that most do not know, and his talk is mostly very good, at ~11:30 minutes, he hypocritically implies that wind and solar are so-called "renewables", although it takes a lot of energy to make THEM, too.
He does make good points but he is not producing the whole picture. He also neglects to mention the CO2 produced by vehicles that transport the fuel all around the globe to all the gas stations to support these vehicles. The gas does not magically appear at the gas station. He also false claims that combustion engines have not be been optimized. This is a matter of opinion. He also gives a simplistic idea of what development, research, and investing. People with billions to invest don’t generally give away that money on proof of concept alone. Things need to been scalable.
Any repair eg wind turbine blades made of laminated ie glued polycarbonate ie fossil fuel products.
But they last a long time.
@@lybiwinzenz2880 Turbine blades have been found to degrade much faster than expected in regions with blowing sand like deserts or salt particles like offshore.
@@lybiwinzenz2880 no they don't
There are so many holes in this talk that I don't even know where to start...but let's start where he started...today was once tomorrow of yesterday...we must start walking if you ever hope to get anywhere...and today is the best day.
Word salad
Waiting for u to debunk his facts
@@vrrnonorem4266 It’s actually uncountable and I’m gonna rush right now maybe I’ll get back to this later on but I’m tired of defending electric I’ve heard every damn argument there is about it pros and cons and I’m going electric.
Enlightening thank you.
can i get the latest graph updates as of 2023 or 2024 data please? like the 180000 miles graph, then with growth of the EV industry the emissions generated before 0 miles and the crossing of the graph at 80-90k miles?
I don't understand how the cycle from oil to automobile to CO2 can't include the CO2 continuing to plant life? When I was young the oil in the ground was understood to be "fossil fuel" from deposits of dead plant and animal life. Makes for a long cycle, but still a cycle. This is an interesting talk with some interesting analysis.
Yes. Ultimately it's is a cycle. Eventually the produced CO2 would get sequestered at the bottom of the ocean and deposited as new coal, oil etc. The problem is that this cycle is extremely long at least on our civilization scale (we are talking about 10 -100 million years). We have been here as a species for a couple 100k. Some 10k since the end of Stone Age. We burned all fossil fuels so far in like 200 years. The natural cycle is just too slow to be useful to us.
Because fossil fuels bring in long stored 'co2 deposits'. If you bring that in, you also need to get that back out in a similar way. Sure the planet itself can deal with such a long term cycle, but most current life (including us) can't. There are attempts at putting co2 back underground for long term storage similar to how the gas ,coal and oil was locked away, but these are very very expensive systems and not very efficient.
I was in the automobile repair industry for 34 years, a friend asked me my opinion of hybrid vehicles. My response was this, "Currently there are 2 events that can total loss a vehicle without an accident/collision, a failed engine which costs $1,500 to $2,500 to repair or replace, a transmission failure which costs $1,500 to $2,500 to repair or replace; with hybrids we add a battery pack which costs $1,500 to $5,000 to repair or replace." Like anything else there will always be bargain options, I've seen customers provide there own $700 'refurbished' battery pack, but I've never seen one last over a year. Weigh those options however you wish and choose the path you find most prudent. I am of the opinion that there is no magic elixir.
That's also something he failed to mention about hybrids and such costs are partly why consumers don't get them as much.
I know this is old, I wish he clarified 2 mode hybrid vs a mild one.
I interviewed a top energy expert on my home page vid. A must watch interview. The expert warns that EV conversion will not happen and oil can never be replaced.
@@ChannelNews1 You should stop promoting people who either don’t know what they’re talking about or are lying because they have serious emotional problems. Why are you doing it?
For conventional fuel only the co2 coming out of the tail pipe is taken into account but for Electricity co2 during Electricity production and the battery production both are counted. What about the co2 produced by the oil industry from start to finish when an electric pump is needed to fill the tank and again an electric pump is needed to take the fuel to the injectors which again need Electricity to finally burn it. Wonder why the co2 of fuel per leter before it is pumped in the car is not mentioned at the fuel stations.
I feel like oil changes should also be calculated into a gas vehicles emissions plus transporting fuel to gas stations, building semis and tankers to transport said fuel as well as ships 🚢 that transport oil, all the drilling equipment for the extraction of oil. Plus producing the vast amount of different parts internal combustion engines need and the transportation of those parts. Plus mining, transporting, producing, shipping, digging and maintaining pipelines for transporting fuels and oils across vast distances needs to be calculated. I can just keep going on and on. All aspects of electric vehicle production needs to be calculated as well and I can say for sure I’d be very interested in seeing properly researched and calculated results.
You mean total transparency? How could that ever happen lol. But that would certainly and always is the best approach to sound engineering and wise leadership. Get all the facts from both sides evaluate and weigh them then make an unbiased decision. How refreshing that would be in every form of government. If only it could ever happen.
Good point electricity is easier to transport
@@markpetroni Aww yes what a refreshing world that’d be.
when performing a LCA (Life cycle analysis) it IS taken into account the completely extraction, processing and transportation of the oil. Same goes for the BEV
Just make sure and include a lot of the same to get batteries for the electric car as well.
I wish our government and OEMs can use his logic. I was also hoping he would pitch for nuclear energy as solar and wind turbines need lots of CO2 to build and not efficiently transferring electricity.
@@MyVideosDon I agree. Thank you. Efficiently is best for nuclear energy if we put politics aside. But we are not smart…we should study France versus Germany
He should put his CO2 model he uses for vehicles into the renewable generation. In other words, how long will a wind turbine have to run to offset the CO2 produced from its manufacture
Oil is renewable source of energy. If you return to wells which were depleted years ago you will find oil once again. How's that?
I am writing an essay on this topic. Can somebody provide a source for the information at 9:35
Here's the thing about this presentation... he made up most of the data. Note the disclaimer from TED in the video description about not having scientific evidence for many of the claims in the video.
you mean needing a 3.2 times larger battery for 400 miles in comparison to 125 miles range ??
I would say that it would be impossible to quantify. It's as nebulous as climate change models.
You forgot to expand the ICE vehicle box to include gasoline production as well
@Fabien Heitz Yeah, I noticed that too.
He tells us to view the EV as a whole yet he didn't account for Co2 emissions of processing a barrel of oil to gasoline. One barrel of oil to gas (42 gallons) produces 520 pounds of Co2 (237kg)
He missed a lot out. This was a little biased, I felt.
But plants can convert CO2 from automobiles into O2, too, so there is some kind of cycle. Whether it is in balance or not is another issue.
Biologically correct farming (Johnson, U of NM) could, just by itself, reverse overall CO2 flow.
Yes to be in balance the processes taken together are CO2 neutral. E.g. manufacturing hydrocarbons from CO2 and water, then burning them. The plants are always at work in any case, so just burning oil adds net CO2. Increasing plants would decrease CO2.
The biggest emitters of C02 are people, maybe that's why Dims are trying to kill so many.
Yes and interestingly the combustion engine burns O2 when running....
@@McUser1965 combustion engines burns oxygen, not gasoline??? Not on this planet!!
And what about the need to replace the battery that fails long before 400,000 miles?
Missing here is the amount of co2 required to produce gasoline. I wonder what the charts would look like with that input.
There should be a massive box around the CO2 required to mine, refine, and transport the gasoline and oil required. The comparison is not apples to apples.
I'm an electrician and a huge fan of Tesla , the man not the company , I've known this for years , in the future these cars will be a game changer , but not till battery tech , and energy generation and transmission catches up, The laws of thermodynamics are the ceiling in this problem, they are the brick wall
More than anything, it's just that EVs aren't cost-effective yet. They still use much less energy to drive than ICE vehicles, and they're compatible with any energy source. That's the whole point. They have plenty of potential--but, it doesn't matter if there's no cost advantage. Better in any way doesn't matter if they cost too much.
@@devilsoffspring5519 $20,000 more on average than an ICE. not too many people can justify that.
@@amorgan5844 Never mind justifying it, affording it is the more important issue. I'd love a Tesla or similar "normal" style electric car with a decent range, but £30k-£40k is just insanely unaffordable. My cars are usually bought used for around £6k and last another 5-7 years after I buy them. I think that is far more sustainable at the moment, both environmentally and financially on a personal level.
But the truth is, the US has the cleanest air in the world, and Gas Vehicles are no problem in the first place.
@@amorgan5844 Not many can justify the exorbitant price of many mainstream ICE cars, either. They buy them because they have no choice--they gotta get to work somehow.
One good outcome of the proliferation of EV is that it might push for increased nuclear power.
can only hope, however, too many people are brainwashed against nuclear.
I hope so, but people are stubborn
I support nuclear, but just not in my backyard.
@@peterwan9076 with the current cost of heating my home I would let them in my backyard, literally.
@@peterwan9076 I'd love a small nuclear plant in my back yard that could feed the village with energy/ bit like a oil donkey in a Texas backyard
What's wrong with steam generators from the mantle layer in the ground?
Simple,taxes & MONEY!
One main problematic factor is the relative rareness of availability of hydrothermal. You can't just drill into the mantle anywhere. Attempt have been made and failed consistently.
The main problem is that rocks are generally more soluble in steam and when the steam cools, as it must when it is released, it deposits its dissolved minerals and gums up the pipes. Get a heat exchanger down there? You go down and do the connections! Do a pretend heat exchanger - gum up the pipes. It is an intractable problem.
I did very similar maths when I chose my car. And came to the same conclusion - - my German luxury-barge, cradle-to-grave, including the fuel it burns, is more environmentally-friendly than an EV. The fact that it's a nice car is quite a bonus as well. I'd dread driving a Prius, or worse, getting stuck in traffic in one.