171 Scientists: CO2 Budget Of Electric Mobility “Twice As Big As Assumed” By European Leaders

Reposted from the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 30. June 2021

171 scientists say European policymakers have grossly miscalculated the CO2 budget of e-cars in 2030 and that in reality CO2 emitted would be MORE THAN TWICE AS HIGH as assumed:

EU Commission head Ursula von der Leyen and her colleagues recently received an open letter drafted by scientists of the International Association of Sustainable Drivetrain and Vehicle Technology Research (IASTEC)

Six representatives from Southwest Europe, South Europe, Southeast Europe, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe and Central Europe signed an open letter on behalf of 171 scientific members of IASTEC.

The 171 scientists say policymakers have “grossly miscalculated the CO2 budget of e-cars in 2030” and that in reality CO2 emitted would be more than twice as high as assumed.

The IASTEC signatories of this letter are representatives of technical universities with research focus in the field of energy, vehicle and drivetrain technology in Europe.

The letter states:

After studying many position papers, drafts and even reviewed scientific publications and analyzing political declarations there are deep concerns of the signees, that the fundamental derivation of CO2 emissions of the sector electricity is based on an insufficient calculus.”

For example, the scientists calculate that a VW ID.3 electric vehicle would “cause” 30 tons of CO2 during its “life cycle” (15 years, 220,000 km) instead of 14 tons during operation through the power grid. In contrast, the CO2 footprint of a diesel full hybrid fueled with R33 (67% fossil fuel, 33% biofuel) would be even better.

The open letter authors also wrote:

As a consequence we must inform you, that due to the typically unnoticed miscalculation the CO2 saving potential of additional contributors of the sector electricity is much more limited than expected by many politicians and communicated! This situation clearly is in contrast to the recommendations of quick CO2 reduction of IPCC.”

Co-signatory Thomas Koch of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology told Germany’s BILD: “We stand by the Green Deal, the CO2 reduction. But we appeal to the EU Commission to acknowledge the miscalculation. The boon of e-mobility is only half as big as assumed, the CO2 footprint of e-mobility twice as big as assumed.”

4.6 34 votes
Article Rating
87 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AWG
June 30, 2021 6:15 pm

. In contrast, the CO2 footprint of a diesel full hybrid fueled with R33 (67% fossil fuel, 33% biofuel) would be even better.

So what is the CO2 footprint of a diesel fueled with the 100% petroleum variety?
Seriously, who sits around and finds comparable equivalents that only policy wonks know of? Why not use aardvarks per acre?

Kevin kilty
Reply to  AWG
June 30, 2021 6:56 pm

Well about 55 tons, but note that these scientists are also advocating 33% biofuels in the mix. To get anywhere near the total of biolfuels needed ro reach below the 30 tons they estimate for the EV, would require ruin of the environment over needed land, water, fertilizers, etc. Worse perhaps than ruin of the environment due to putting up the needed wind turbines, and ruin of the public fisc over all the subsidies.

Pick your poison? I’d stick with fossil fuels.

alastair gray
Reply to  Kevin kilty
June 30, 2021 9:05 pm

Bio fuels are made by growing corn, and throwing away everything but the corn kernels which are fermented to make alcohol. Think about it, you would be better off in energy terms by drying the kernels, popping them and burning the popcorn in a special stove. Now would anyone in his right mind, or even in government who would consider a popcorn stove to be an energy efficient device. Well it is more efficient than bioethanol, and better for the planet.
Welcome to the green new deal. Enjoy!

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  alastair gray
July 1, 2021 12:59 am

There already are corn stoves that burn “cow” corn. As near as I can see, they are similar to the pellet stoves that burn pelleted wood. It seems immoral to burn food for fuel, IMO.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
July 1, 2021 1:31 am

Yes Pamela, it is in fact absolutely completely immoral and WILL be the end of us.

And of life on Earth

Ferdberple
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 1, 2021 11:07 am

What about termites when we burn wood?

John Pickens
Reply to  alastair gray
July 1, 2021 4:56 am

In fact, many acres of maize (corn) are currently being grown in Germany for the sole purpose of burning to produce electricity.

At least in the case of bioethanol production, one of the major byproducts is distiller’s grain, which is a good cattle feed. The food content of corn used in electric production is zero.

Ron
Reply to  John Pickens
July 1, 2021 6:05 am

Meanwhile close to 9,000,000 people die annually from starvation.
Collateral damage.
Save Gaia!

Kevin kilty
Reply to  John Pickens
July 1, 2021 10:44 am

If it were true that no food content is used in making bioethanol, then it would not be possible to make bioethanol in the first place. Even using corn stover for biofuels reduces the organic content that might go into cattle who would winter on corn stuble or microbes using this in building up and maintaining the soil.

John Pickens
Reply to  Kevin kilty
July 1, 2021 5:50 pm

I did not say that no food content is used. Bioethanol production uses the starch content of the corn for fermentation. The remainder, the sugars, proteins, and oils, are available for animal feed. Burning corn for electricity leaves nothing in the way of food.

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  alastair gray
July 1, 2021 10:39 am

Some years ago, I saw a demo of a stove burning spring wheat for home heating. The grain just has to be dry.

A hard fact of grain production is that lots of grain is unsuited for human consumption, even when the variety was supposed to be bread wheat, say. When the wheat is graded low because of frost damage, it gets used for cattle feed, that stuff is never fed to humans. Burning some of this for heat might make sense, but they’ll never scale that up to be a major energy alternative.

Steve Z
Reply to  alastair gray
July 1, 2021 12:05 pm

Biofuel doesn’t necessarily mean ethanol from corn. I agree with you that converting corn into ethanol is wasteful, since the ethanol burned produces about the same amount of CO2 per unit energy produced as gasoline, and then the fossil fuel needed to power the harvesters adds to the energy input and CO2 emissions, while the food value of the corn is lost.

But in the case quoted in the article, “a diesel full hybrid fueled with R33 (67% fossil fuel, 33% biofuel)” designed to burn diesel fuel could not burn ethanol, which is much too volatile to be burned in a diesel engine.

The “biofuel” cited in the article is likely biodiesel, which can be produced from triglycerides available from used cooking oil (from restaurants) or animal fats (from slaughterhouses or butchers). The triglycerides are either decomposed into fatty acids and glycerine, or reacted with methanol to produce methyl esters of fatty acids and glycerine.

Fatty acid molecules usually have fairly long straight-chain (14 to 20 carbon atoms) hydrocarbons with a carboxyl (-C=OOH) group at one end. When these are reacted catalytically with hydrogen, the carboxyl group reacts to form two water molecules, leaving straight-chain hydrocarbons which are chemically similar to diesel fuel distilled from petroleum, which can be separated from the water and blended into diesel fuel.

Biodiesel is more expensive to produce than distilling and desulfurizing diesel fuel from petroleum, but it is high-quality diesel fuel, without the aromatic compounds found in petroleum diesel that decrease its efficiency and can form toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) when burned. It also reduces net CO2 emissions, because it uses raw materials that would otherwise go to waste and rot in a landfill (which would also emit an equal amount of CO2).

If we want a more apples-to-apples comparison without the biofuel, assume that the electric car was compared to a traditional (non-hybrid) diesel-powered car which got 25 miles per gallon. If it was driven 220,000 km, or about 136,700 miles, it would burn 5,468 gallons of diesel fuel, which would have a volume of about 20.7 cubic meters.

Assuming that the diesel fuel has a specific gravity of 0.85 (density = 850 kg/m3), the diesel fuel burned would weigh about 17,600 kg. If the fuel contained two hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom, it would be about 86% carbon by mass, and would contain about 15,100 kg of carbon atoms. Burning 12 kg of carbon emits 44 kg of CO2, so the total CO2 emissions would be about 55.3 metric tons.

The electric car that would “cause” 30 tons of CO2 emissions would reduce the CO2 emissions from a diesel car by about 46% in this comparison.

Of course, this comparison also depends on what is burned to generate the electricity used to charge the electric car. The most efficient method is combined-cycle natural gas, where hot, low-pressure gases from the gas turbine are used to generate steam, which can then produce more power in a steam turbine. A simple-cycle gas turbine (without the steam generation) is much less efficient, and a coal-fired plant would emit about twice as much CO2 per MWh produced as a simple-cycle gas turbine.

The article did not state the generation method for the electric car, so if the electricity was generated from coal, the diesel-powered car may end up “causing” less CO2 emissions than the electric car.

Martin W
Reply to  Steve Z
July 2, 2021 2:31 am

My diesel ( 11 yr old ) returns 49 mpg , which by your own maths is almost twice the value in your calculation above.
Half the carbon, 55/2 = 22.5 , better than the electric???
Discount the fact I don’t need a new car to be made! With the associated carbon footprint!

H.R.
Reply to  AWG
June 30, 2021 7:41 pm

AWG: Why not use aardvarks per acre?”
.
.
They would, but they don’t know the conversion factor from Olympic-sized swimming pools.
😜

(A/A. That’s a good one. I’m going to have to add that to my list of SI units.)

Joao Martins
Reply to  H.R.
July 1, 2021 3:35 am

In SI should be “per square kilometer” or “per hectare” or “per square meter”…

H.R.
Reply to  Joao Martins
July 1, 2021 5:16 am

No, area is in Manhattans 😜

Charles Fairbairn
Reply to  H.R.
July 1, 2021 6:01 am

And energy is in number of homes serviced.

beng135
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
July 2, 2021 7:58 am

Energy is in Hiroshimas.

dk_
Reply to  AWG
June 30, 2021 7:45 pm

Funny how they can’t still get past diesel. E85 is perfectly acceptable for most situations, doesn’t pollute as much as their R33, and is cheaper. Also, the “full hybrid” in this case is an electric vehicle recharged by an onboard diesel engine. But a stationary, standalone household generator, using natural gas and/or biogas would be even better and shore up the failing grid network, while using some existing infrastructure. And a part-hybrid (engine drives wheels with electric assist) even better yet.
But they’ve already rejected sane solutions in the impossible drive to decarbonize. Too little rationality, and much too late.

Dennis
Reply to  dk_
June 30, 2021 8:12 pm

The needle injection for Diesel-Gas can be fitted to stationary generator engines.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  dk_
July 1, 2021 1:39 am

Nice one, as per what the real enthusiast ‘Off Gridders’ would construct/operate;

i.e. A modest little diesel engine (in the UK typically of ‘Lister’ manufacture) driving a self-excited generator. AC or DC
Every scrap of heat from the set-up would be ‘harvested’ to heat the home while the elecktrickery would be used at home either directly, charging batteries (even inc, EV batts), heating hot water in summer-time, building an ice-bank for food storage or even, exported to the grid.
Perfectly nothing wasted and easily 90 to 95% overall efficient

Charles Fairbairn
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 1, 2021 6:25 am

My Dad was probably the first to use an EV for commuting purposes.
We had a good solid Lister 2 cylinder diesel with a large flywheel to get it started manually and it popped away during day producing 110 volts dc. to a bank of batteries next door.
He bought a battery milk float to bring up the domestic employees from the village below each day and the diesel charged it up for the following day. A converter provided ac. for the large gramophone/radio we had in the sitting room.
This was all back in the late 1940s and early 50s and we all learned to switch off the lights whenever we could if we wanted to avoid trouble.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
July 6, 2021 12:17 pm

I had a friend in highschool with a model”A” Ford with a diesel tank and gasoline one. When the engine was hot he switched it to diesel (farm diesel that wasn’t taxed. It was dyed red for ID purposes) and drove very economically.

dk_
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 1, 2021 3:49 pm

Check out Neander Motors Cooling-Heating-Power co-generation proposal. Heat or cool the house while sending excess electrical power to the grid. Or a small co-generator for just heating domestic water that primarily generates electricity for use or storage.
Most diesels can be converted to CNG only, or to CNG+diesel fuel.

Dennis
Reply to  AWG
June 30, 2021 8:11 pm

Now forgotten, conveniently forgotten I suspect, is the technology Diesel-Gas fuel for vehicles with a Diesel engine. I had an older version on a Mitsubishi Diesel engine that used fumigation, no specific flow control of Liquid Petroleum Gas that flowed into the manifold to mix with the distillate, in my 2.7 litre engine adjusted for 20 per cent of fuel to be LPG. Later I had a needle point injection version fitted that precisely injected the LPG as needed according to the driver pushing the accelerator pedal.

My vehicle was a 4WD however operating in 2WD mode on a Dynometer the power and torque increased measured at the rear wheels by 20 per cent on flywheel measurement published by Mitsubishi.

Fuel consumption was slightly lower than on distillate only however, mixing the fuels resulted in lower exhaust gas emissions, particulates. I was told that a typical Diesel engine wastes about 15-20 per cent of the fuel burn as exhaust gases – see dark smoke under power. With Diesel-Gas injected the fuel efficiency is more like 95 per cent burnt resulting in extra power, and of course far lower emissions.

Considering the popularity of Diesel engines in the EU (and elsewhere) maybe the Standard should have included Diesel-Gas systems and to save nations and citizens enormous amounts of money not having a electric vehicle transition? Petrol engine vehicles are already very fuel and emissions efficient meeting the latest EU Standard.

dk_
Reply to  Dennis
June 30, 2021 9:07 pm

Cummins is offering a large CNG compression-ignition engine for trucks and school busses. Many companies offer dual-fuel vehicles, using diesel with natural gas. Petrol/gasoline engines can be converted to CNG or to use both. Ford is getting few takers on a combined petrol/gasoline + cng engine offered in light trucks.

The fantasies of carbon-free energy, emphasis on fake renewables and dope dreams of free electricity for transporation, household, and industry are undercutting the real, available, and inexpensive fixes to the actual problems of pollution and availability. It was never about carbon or the climate, but about the political and economic takeover of the power generation and distriburion industry.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  dk_
July 1, 2021 1:48 am

There was a retired doctor an green enthusiast lived near me in Cumbria.
Quite insane but interesting..

He operated a modest organic farm and took to growing organic grass haylage ## that was fed into a digester.

## They held an Open Day. I went. That haylage was simply magical stuff = The Original wildflower meadow stuff – it smelled gorgeous. Exactly what would sell for £££s for ounces as Pot-Pourri in la-de-dah ‘home touches’ shops or even what equestrian types would give their eye-teeth for.
And they were stuffing it into a digester. Madness

But, what gas the did make went into a Cummins diesel, modified to spark ignition.

It all didn’t last long, £400,000 of taxpayers money now sat as a mouldering lump of concrete in the wilds of North Cumbria
See if he’s still there…
Used to be called “Low Luckens Organic Research Centre”

Jay
Reply to  AWG
July 2, 2021 2:38 pm

With all respect, it’s 2021! Aardvark’s per acre is no longer standard. It’s now chipmunks per hectare. Not as poetic, but it is metric.

Terry
June 30, 2021 6:15 pm

Quelle surprise!

Abolition Man
June 30, 2021 6:26 pm

So the benefits of EVs are only half the previous estimates? Let me see; 1/2 X 0.0 = hmmm?
If only we could divide, the benefits would be infinite!

n.n
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 30, 2021 7:03 pm

Shared/shifted responsibility is worth something. However, other factors (e.g. environmental blight, human welfare) may drag it kicking and screaming back to 0.0. But is it viable? That is the question. Perhaps in the second and third trimesters as the “burden” becomes a de facto progression and absorbed with silent lucidity.

Rich T.
June 30, 2021 6:39 pm

Accuracy strikes again. Only when it proves your point. Since it did not make the NGD attractive it was disregarded. Just like the Wind and Solar to produce nameplate instead of the 25% it actually does in reality. Facts don’t matter in the GND. Only the GND religion cult.

Joel O'Bryan
June 30, 2021 6:55 pm

Anyone who thinks the miscalculation was unintentional, I have bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Climate change remedies are chock-full of such “miscalculations.”

n.n
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 30, 2021 7:08 pm

Yes, the better question is what motivated, perhaps forced, this epiphany about the diverse assumptions/assertions now. Either their competing interests have been suppressed, the value calculus has changed, or there is a viable risk that the winds have shifted.

H.R.
Reply to  n.n
June 30, 2021 7:47 pm

I’ll back you on this one, n.n

What changed? What’s the new game?

Why the change from “Everyone must have an EV” to “EVs just might possibly suck?”

Did Elon step on someone’s toes?

OweninGA
Reply to  H.R.
June 30, 2021 7:52 pm

The difference is now they want to make sure the serfs can never leave a 5 mile radius from their homes. Only the upper crust is allowed travel in the EVs.

n.n
Reply to  OweninGA
June 30, 2021 8:25 pm

The crabs in a bucket theory of social management.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  OweninGA
June 30, 2021 9:45 pm

Ceausescu’s ‘systematisation’ policy was intended to concentrate populations of rural hamlets and villages into multi-storey apartment blocks where they could be more easily controlled.
Police or regime trusties would be housed on the ground floors to monitor the resident and visitor comings-and-goings.
No need for that nowadays, people seem happy to have their movements monitored electronically via stupid little phones.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
July 1, 2021 9:08 am

Make that; ‘stupid little SMART phones’!

beng135
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
July 2, 2021 8:04 am

And all electronics, mail, conversations monitored for approval/disapproval/social “score”, etc.

Last edited 1 month ago by beng135
n.n
Reply to  H.R.
June 30, 2021 8:21 pm

He did have the audacity to leave the plantation. He published evidence that challenged the efficacy and risk of the novel vaccines, for one. Amazon competitive standing, for another. Didn’t he also run afoul of Chinese social regulators, too? We are not amused.

June 30, 2021 7:09 pm

Maybe one or two of these scientists should also mention that CO2 is not a problem but rather a great benefit to mankind?

RayB
Reply to  Anti_griff
June 30, 2021 7:34 pm

Moreover, the reduction of CO2 might actually kill all plants and most life that need oxygen. When looking at geologic times, it is actually a good thing that we started to pump it up again in the atmosphere.

n.n
Reply to  RayB
June 30, 2021 8:28 pm

Our contribution is still a fraction of a fraction with dubious, albeit green, effect.

n.n
Reply to  Anti_griff
June 30, 2021 8:14 pm

Don’t be green, go green, not Green. Emit, responsibly.

And the black “caviar”, a delicacy for some lower forms of life that form the foundation of food “pyramids” in their neck of the oceans.

B Clarke
June 30, 2021 7:29 pm

So will the EU decide to go for bio desiel hybrid, ignore go electric anyway, or just do away with private vehicle ownership. I’m thinking number three as I believe this has always been the intention. OT Wales just announced a bio diversity emergency “which is inexplicably linked with climate change.”

Another angle thier looking at in climate change ,I kid you not on this one the only way to describe this guy is he’s a psychopath , the whole video is informative , the psychopath starts around 5.28 mins. https://youtu.be/QlUXTP4pGcA

John in Oz
Reply to  B Clarke
July 1, 2021 4:58 pm

OT Wales just announced a bio diversity emergency “which is inexplicably linked with climate change.”

Inexplicably | Definition of Inexplicably at Dictionary.com
adverb in a way that cannot be accounted for or explained

When announcing an emergency, the words used do not seem to matter, as long as you run around waving your hands and screaming that ‘they should do something”

Even though it’s inexplicable, we are sure it is caused by climate change.

H.R.
June 30, 2021 7:35 pm

171 scientists say European policymakers have grossly miscalculated the CO2 budget of e-cars in 2030 and that in reality CO2 emitted would be MORE THAN TWICE AS HIGH as assumed:

.
.
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 Idiots! Very slow to catch on, eh?

These are the same policy makers that get a call from the health department three months down the road that asks them to come in to be tested for a case of the clap or some such.

They should know better.

They don’t.

dk_
June 30, 2021 7:37 pm

“…studying many position papers, drafts and even reviewed scientific publications…”
Does this mean that, just now, they’ve started listening to scientists?
If they’d honestly research the real environmental costs of wind, solar, biofuel, and of lithium ion batteries, and the social costs of doing without power, transport, food, clothing, and medicines consequent of the green deal, they’d be in for at least a rude awakening (or a real awokening).

n.n
Reply to  dk_
June 30, 2021 8:32 pm

Oh, they’re awoke… and drowsy, but they exhibit signs of awakening, and in that lies the news.

markl
June 30, 2021 7:42 pm

It’s all about the AGW narrative to determine what the “facts” prove.

n.n
Reply to  markl
June 30, 2021 8:34 pm

A handmade tale with ulterior motives.

Doonman
June 30, 2021 7:47 pm

It doesn’t matter how much CO2 is reduced in the e-car calculations. What does matter and is clear is that when the world ecomony shuts down to 50% of its output instantly, as the covid experiment showed, there is no discernible decrease in measureable atmospheric CO2.

OweninGA
Reply to  Doonman
June 30, 2021 7:54 pm

That only means that 50% is not nearly enough. We must lose 100% of our GDP to save Gaia. Well more like 99%, the IMPORTANT people must be allowed to maintain THEIR lifestyle. (Great quantities of Sarc)

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  OweninGA
June 30, 2021 8:27 pm

I thought that the right answer was always 97%. And, don’t forget, the reason that the CO2 concentration didn’t decrease with the shutdowns is because there is a lag. After all, CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a century.

PCman999
Reply to  OweninGA
July 1, 2021 12:23 am

Even with 100% reduction of industrial emissions, the ppm’s would still increase at the same rate, covid has proven that the level of co2 in the air is an equilibrium level between it and the ocean.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  OweninGA
July 1, 2021 1:10 am

But it takes a lot of people to make those extravagant lifestyles possible. These clowns will destroy what they so desire in their rush to take it away from the rest of us. Once again, unintended consequences spoil the pudding…

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Doonman
June 30, 2021 8:48 pm

Doonman,
You’re confused. Governments WANT government spending to be the largest economic driver so they can control everything they wish to. Shutdowns of industry help them achieve their newfound money issuing utopia, improving their spending ratio by sending money to struggling businesses, and struggling ex-workers, and carbon taxing those who still can drive to work and heat their homes.

PCman999
Reply to  Doonman
July 1, 2021 12:17 am

That non-drop in co2 levels in the air – no matter how hard I stared at the Mauna Kea graphs I couldn’t see even a slight wiggle different than other years – really shows that the ppm’s are an equilibrium level between air and ocean and the only thing that makes a difference is the Northern Hemisphere coming to full bloom in late April, where all the plants and plankton make good use of all that extra sunshine until about October.

ATheoK
June 30, 2021 8:01 pm

This smacks of a release meant to lay the groundwork for minimizing the actual CO₂ emissions incurred by EVs.

Yes, the numbers they pose look bad for EVs. However, it is likely the real figures including accounting all of the losses due to special grid networks and battery losses are much worse.

H.R.
Reply to  ATheoK
June 30, 2021 9:19 pm

Hmmm…. “Its worse than we thought!”

1) Cats and dogs will sleep together.

2) The oceans will boil away

3) Oh noes! EVs actually suck! They don’t reduce CO2.
.
.
Yup. It’s worse than they thought.

Dennis
June 30, 2021 8:19 pm

The most simple solution is usually the most cost effective solution. When the emissions reduction started in the 1980s when leaded Petrol and replaced with unleaded Petrol, at enormous cost for oil refineries and internal combustion engine manufacturers, a Sydney Australia vehicle muffler designer and manufacturer worked out how to remove lead particulates from exhaust gases.

The same but much larger baffle system is used to lower grit erosion on coal fired power station boiler tubes, expanded metal which can be just about any type of metal. The expanded shape depending on direction of air/gas flow deflects the flow and swirls it around causing particulates to fall. So in a vehicle muffler with expanded metal baffles the lead particles drop into the bottom of the muffler, tests from memory resulted in a teaspoon of lead particles over an average several years of driving.

Layor Nala
June 30, 2021 8:48 pm

I have a 2013 VW Crafter. These, in common with most diesel engines, these days use a built-in urea additive to convert NOx to N gas and water. Another plus for diesels.

Gary Pearse
June 30, 2021 9:26 pm

I guess the idea of a feasibility study is out of fashion. It requires engineers right at the beginning. So, before engineers got a look at the problem, who was doing these calculations? They used them to design zero carbon by 2030. My rough calculation suggests they now have to stretch it out to 2060 (in the real world, out to 2100 seems more likely).

ross
June 30, 2021 9:26 pm

Climate science seems to be the only science that allows error rates/variations of 200% as above or 300% as perCMIP6 ECS models (climate sensitivity ranges 5.6 to 1.8) to be widely embraced and accepted. Im sure engineering, medicine, proper physics etc all require a greater degree of accuracy.

another ian
Reply to  ross
July 1, 2021 12:35 am

Haven’t they heard yet that

“Correct within an order of magnitude = wrong”?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  ross
July 1, 2021 5:21 am

You must live in Utopia. Government projects NEVER come in under budget and on time.

old engineer
June 30, 2021 9:41 pm

Who are these people, and why are they criticizing electric vehicles? They say they are all for reducing CO2. It didn’t make sense to me until I thought: Aha! Hydrogen! They are going to push hydrogen.

old engineer
Reply to  old engineer
July 1, 2021 12:07 pm

Further on who these people are and why they would be criticizing electric cars. A quick google search finds their website here:

IASTEC – international association of sustainable drivetrain and vehicle technology research

They say this about themselves:

The International Association of Sustainable Drivetrain and Vehicle Technology Research, IASTEC (in the process of founding) is an international association of professors and researchers worldwide working on vehicle and drivetrain research at famous universities. The purpose of IASTEC is to promote science, research and teaching in the field of vehicle and drivetrain technology.”

They have published a position paper on their website. They say this about their position paper:

With this position paper, the signees address the urgent need for technological openness for propulsion technology for ground vehicles in order to reduce CO2 emission from fossil energy sources on a global basis and fast. This position paper is directed at political decision-makers, investors, and also interested citizens.”

My take on this: They are a bunch of professors who are concerned about the head-long rush to electric vehicles.

The most generous interpretation is that they want to examine all the alternatives for changing the transportation system and pick the best solution from an engineering and economic standpoint.

The most UNgenerous interpretation is that they are a bunch of rent seekers, who are looking to further their own careers with more government (and other) research money.

It will be interesting to see if they get any traction.

(I can’t believe it took over 50 comments before someone asked who and why, then checked it out. No wonder people complain about the quality of comments here.)

Drake
Reply to  old engineer
July 1, 2021 6:40 pm

I think it was obvious to almost ALL readers of this post who these people are. They are leftist rent seekers who want their piece of the pie. I mean they do their research at “FAMOUS UNIVERSITIES”!! Many (myself included) even looked them up, but since MOST of us here do that type of thing, no one mentioned it, which would have been a waste of time in my opinion.

As to it having taken 50 comments, and 2 hours and 20 minutes after your first post, for YOU to state what every other reader and commenter already knew, wow! So with comments like the above, “no wonder people complain about the quality of comments here”.

Sorry about the snark, but I think MOST commenters at WUWT, less a well known few, provide added quality to the site.

Matthew Sykes
June 30, 2021 11:03 pm

They have to add laying in the charging points on every street too, not to mention increasing grid capacity and power to individual houses by 50%.

And for what, to stop trees having a decent lunch.

What a joke. How the hell did we let ourselves be hoodwinked by this scam?

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
July 1, 2021 5:46 am

100%, AFAIK.

Vincent Causey
June 30, 2021 11:49 pm

They think it’s a miscalculation? Naive.

Rod Evans
June 30, 2021 11:56 pm

Did the scientists now shouting out, really think the ongoing reduction of private mobility freedom, was aimed at reducing CO2?
When AOC’s political advisor and controller came out and said, ” Did you think the GND is about the environment, it is actually about destroying capitalism”

Rusty
July 1, 2021 1:27 am

So long as most of the CO2 is produced in China then it’s fine.

Teddy Lee
July 1, 2021 1:30 am

Good to see that Germany is fully committed to that green wunder fuel supplied by Gasprom!

Peta of Newark
July 1, 2021 1:52 am

Hope they attach that sort of thinking to Heat Pumps, as now mandated for home heating.

Especially Air-Source pumps which will, in Northern Europe, spend most of their time with their external (outdoors) heat exchangers frozen solid.

While using an immersion heater to heat the house, thus galloping through electrickery at a rate that makes Al Gore’s mansion look positively frugal

Ack
July 1, 2021 4:40 am

Only the rich and powerful will be allowed to have cars

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Ack
July 1, 2021 5:48 am

They will have to pry my Alfa from my cold, dead hands and I will take a large honour guard with me.

Brad-DXT
July 1, 2021 6:45 am

Did these scientists take into account the carbon footprint of manufacturing and disposal of the batteries in these e-cars?
The increase in the amount of mining necessary to produce these e-cars components leads to an exorbitant increase in real pollution of Mother Gaia through the mining process and the disposal of all the heavy metals.

PaulH
July 1, 2021 7:31 am

If I were to “grossly miscalculate” my household budget, I would be in serious trouble with many people. Not so with the Green Blob, it seems. 😉

Ferdberple
July 1, 2021 10:54 am

When corn (sugar) is converted to ethanol, the microbes doing the conversion release CO2 as the primary waste product.

What irony. If you wrote this as fiction no one would believe it.

July 1, 2021 11:09 am

Who cares?
This has never been about CO2
If it was, nuclear ☢️ would be embraced.

willem post
July 1, 2021 11:38 am

I am surprised, it took these “171 scientists” so long to come up with their letter to the EU folks in Brussels.

The Brussel folks seem to be in their own alternate universe of reality, full of biased assumptions.

They are hoping scare-mongered, non-technical folks will be sufficiently brain-washed to go along with their pronouncements for the future Nirvana.

The below article describes, in detail, EVs will reduce CO2 by about 50% of what Brussels EV proponents have been claiming. Their simplistic analyses are full of errors and omissions.

Any economic and CO2 analyses must be on a lifetime, A to Z basis, including the CO2 emitted by restructuring entire ECONOMIES for EVs, heat pumps, batteries, etc.

POOR ECONOMICS AND MINIMAL CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-electric-vehicles-in-new-england

This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.
 
EVs are designed to be aero-dynamic, and to have low rolling resistance, efficient drive trains, and efficient batteries. This will minimize vehicle weight and maximize range. Tesla is the industry leader regarding efficient EVs.
 
In this article,

Total cost of an EV, c/mile = Operating cost, c/mile + Owning cost, c/mile, i.e., amortizing the difference of the MSRPs of an EV versus an equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicle; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

CO2 reduction of equivalent vehicleson a lifetime, A-to-Z basis = CO2 emissions of an efficient gasoline vehicle, say 30 to 40 mpg – CO2 emissions of an EV
 
It is important to assess the cost and operating impacts of large-scale use of EVs on electricity generation, grid capacity and grid-scale energy storage capacity, on an A-to Z basis.
 
This article has six parts and an Appendix.

SUMMARY
 
Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs
 
It may not be such a good idea to have a proliferation of EVs, because of:
 
1) Their high initial capital costs; about 50% greater than equivalent gasoline vehicles.
2) The widespread high-speed charging facilities required for charging “on the road”.
3) The loss of valuable time when charging “on the road”.
4) The high cost of charging/kWh, plus exorbitant penalties, when charging “on-the-road”.
 
High-Mileage Hybrids a Much Better Alternative Than EVs
 
The Toyota Prius, and Toyota Prius plug-in, which get up to 54 mpg, EPA combined, would:
 
1) Have much less annual owning and operating costs than any EV, for at least the next ten years.
2) Have minimal wait-times, as almost all such plug-ins would be charging at home 
3) Be less damaging to the environment, because their batteries would have very low capacity, kWh
4) Impose much less of an additional burden on the electric grids.
 
Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, save about the same amount of CO₂ as electric cars over their lifetime, plus:
 
1) They are cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles, even without subsidies.
2) They do not require EV chargers, do not induce range anxiety, can be refilled in minutes, instead of hours. 
3) Climate change does not care about where CO₂ comes from. Gasoline cars are only about 7% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing them with electric cars would only help just a little, on an A to Z, lifetime basis.
 
“Electrify Everything”, an easily uttered slogan that would costs $billions in Vermont
 
It would require:
 
– Additional electricity generation plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro
– Additional grid augmentation/expansion to carry increased loads for future EVs and heat pumps
– Additional battery systems to store the midday solar electricity surges for later use, aka, DUCK-curve management.
– Major command/control-orchestrating to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:
 
1) Charging times and duration of EVs and heat pumps
2) Operating times of major appliances
3) Control of electricity demands of commercial/industrial businesses

Dennis G Sandberg
July 1, 2021 8:19 pm

Germany is not building any offshore wind this year and the most recent onshore auction was shaping up to again be ‘undersubscribed” so it was “postponed”. Germany installed more wind in 2017 than in 2018, 19, 20, 21 combined. They powers that be know, what no liberal will ever admit to, that wind and solar can not function without battery storage. The alternative, is hydrogen, a mix of green from there too many wind turbines, and blue hydrogen now that natural gas via Nord Stream II is a reality IMHO. Watching with interest.

kcrucible
July 3, 2021 4:29 am

Now that they have the climate change agenda pretty much locked in, they can afford to demonize ALL vehicles and tax/legislate them out of the hands of the common man, which frankly, was the goal all along and goes hand in hand with Agenda 21.

Chris Hoff
July 4, 2021 3:31 pm

In Canada there’s talk the government wants to ban all ICE vehicles by 2035. It occurred to me the other day exactly how easy it would be for China or a guy like Soros to take complete control of my country and then sabotage the economy. 1 federal government prime minister, 4 opposition leaders, 10 Provincial Premiers each with 4 opposition party leaders, for a total of 55 national and provincial party leaders. Throw in a similar number of top Generals, federal and provincial top cops, top 500 company business leaders, grand total 1000 people. To bribe each one to the tune of 10 million each, $10 Billion Canadian. Sound crazy, all the Canadian MSM are subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer to the tune of the exact same amount, and they never say anything negative about Justin Trudeau or his government. The opposition parties are all in lockstep with Trudeau on Climate Change. How better to destroy a national economy that go down the economically suicidal net zero pathway. Then in 30 years when the earth’s magnetic field has collapsed and the economy(what’s left of it) is entirely converted to electric, we get another Carrington Event.

%d bloggers like this: