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.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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. 😉
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.
Who cares?
This has never been about CO2
If it was, nuclear ☢️ would be embraced.
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 vehicles, on 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
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.
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.
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.