According to a German study, electric vehicles are far worse for the environment than those powered by diesel, including much higher CO2 emissions. Yet, here in the US at least, we tax the hell out of diesel and subsidize electric cars. -- Zero Hedge
This is just a thought but it kind of makes sense to me because we are paying for electricity as a service and buying diesel as a product, for lack of a better word.
Even if true, I'm willing to bet scientists will figure out a way to reduce that problem. I doubt they will figure out a way to mass produce diesel fuel.
The study does not meet common scientific standards and seems to be, at least partly, ideology-driven. The authors are: a renowned economist but no engineer, a physicist but no expert in automotive engineering. And one of the authors can not be found on any respective science portal. The study was not published on the platform of a scientific publication organ which suggests that it did not undergo the normal peer-review procedure of any serious scientific study. Why did they skip that? In a nutshell, best-case-scenarios for the Diesel are being compared to worst-case-scenarios for electric cars. Critics have spotted the following weaknesses of the study. The CO² emission comparison of the Tesla 3 and the Mercedes C220 Diesel is based on lab findings which make the Diesel look better than its performance on the road. Those data are easily available, though. The study assumes a battery life of 90,000 miles which seems to be rather little and does not include second-life use and recycling. The energy needed to produce the battery is simply added to the energy consumed instead of offsetting it against the energy saved because a range of components (engine, gearbox, exhaust system, cats) is no longer needed. It is also assumed that the battery will be produced using fossil energy only. When charging the battery, the Tesla 3 is supposed to consume 16% more than calculated by the Ministry for the Environment. Reasons for the higher consumption are not given.
@Ken Anderson Reading the link revealed that my suspicion was correct: the electrically-propelled car emits NO C02, but the concern arises from environmental costs incurred in the making of it's batteries. It must be borne in mind that heavily populated areas, cities, and areas of very high population density suffer the effects of increasing pollution, to be sure, but, not often is mining and production concentrated in the places suffering the most. Frank
@Von Jones Electricity as a product is tricky to define, since it's availability at our wall socket 24/7 does not mean we have used any of that product there. However, getting that product to appear at our socket, and remain there until we need and use it, generates environmental pollution, whether the product is used or not. Diesel fuel, OTOH, once produced, sits quietly in a vehicle's tank, awaiting the chance to be burned and spewed into the environment as pollution. Making that diesel fuel and delivering it to it's end-use point surely also pollutes the environment, before it gets it's own chance to contribute. This is all a multi-pronged Satan's Pitchfork. Frank
@Nancy Hart Diesel "fuel" now exists in quite a few different forms, obtained from quite a few sources, some of which are rather remarkable. "Bio-diesel fuel" is being made from non-petroleum based stock: Soy bean oil can be made to run diesel engines, for example. All of the waste "grease" from every restaurant and food producer can be made into diesel fuel. Many years ago, Cummins Engine Co., one of the foremost diesel engine makers, performed exhibitions in which they ran one of their engines on BUTTERMILK! Frank
Whatever you say, Frank. It just never made sense to me to think about converting something that can be used for food, to run cars, for the long term. And aren't cattle (beef) the least efficient form of food? Or are they more efficient in producing buttermilk?
@Nancy Hart Ha! I see and understand your point! Reality is, the world runs on what the market will bear, unfortunately. When the time comes that food can be converted more cheaply to machine-fuel than getting that fuel out of the ground, we may rest assured that despite our long experience of food abundance in America, shortages of one kind or another will emerge. The big-store aisle, length of the entire store, dedicated to pet food is to me both bewildering and disturbing. I have little doubt there are millions of people on this Earth who would gladly eat our pet foods. Frank
This looks like a very interesting answer to fuel problems world wide. This video is five years old there is probably lots of advances since then. Magnesium Fuel Cell Battery and Sun-light Pumped Laser
That's the most honest picture one could have regarding how "clean" and "economical" electric cars are. But those are the same people who think if the government takes $100 out of their pay so burgers vend at 5¢, then eating has been "made more affordable."