Video

I rather keep driving my 2006 Euro 3 car for another decade than get into any of these new crap…

Well it killed its coal industry. It now relies on Russian oil and gas even if it comes via India. Trump is the only one to distort truth for questionable reasons. It is like the world is being run by people who failed to get a good education.

Relative poverty might be misleading, but so are the statistics and arguments used in this video.

I have subscribed because I like your oblique views of economics, especially re vehicles. The EU Commission is a non-sovereign mini dictatorship which assumes power it cannot actually put into effect if a a few member states refuse to comply. "Directives" are not binding laws and when the British people lost patience with restrictive practices cutting it off from Commonwealth and world markets we [I am British but live in Ireland which is a slavish EU member because by roots are Irish and I retired to gorgeous countryside here -- NOT because I approve of otiose, anti-democratic governance] left the club, the Commission and Council tried to sabotage British democracy. Referendums are very rare in the UK and are 1 person 1 vote for the UK as a union regardless of regions and the 4 separate jurisdictions. Any of the 4 has the freedom to form majorities to apply for EU membership any time but none could do it alone. Norway was never a member of the EU, nor is Iceland and it is probable that Greenland will opt to form trade and protection alliances. This will probably also occur in the Balkans and parts of Italy and Iberia accepted the Treaty of Rome but not that of Lisbon in practice -- mainly because the EU had an ethos of favouring German and Benelux interests as well as some French but was never equitable after Lisbon and the freedom of movement consequences, to the great detriment of poorer states such as Greece, southern Italy, some Black Sea states and ROI. Back to motor vehicles and emissions: the simple truth is that combusting hydrocarbons for any application gives rise to 4 main types of pollutant, taking an 'air' norm of pre-industrial levels where 'industrial' means the use of heat engines fueled by hydrocarbons. While the biosphere is moderately able to repair itself, a point is reached at which localized pollution in crowded areas affects organic health from simple life forms, humans, animal species and crops. Crop fall-off has been remedied by artificial fertilizers but the leaching of compounds and mixtures into water systems had the effect of high toxicity spreading across national borders or in the form of 'acid rain' in weather sub-systems. We saw this in the south or Nordic states emanating from intensive industry in central and east central Europe following clear patterns in the 1960s to the 1980s. Germany's careless use of lignite, oil and imported gas was an eco disaster and, cynically, offending plants tended to be sited in eastern Germany and near the Danish border. As electricity was generated mainly in this crude way the short period of German nuclear generation made little difference and that country's actual pollution point of origin remains unacceptably high. Stats are massaged to hide the truth but Germany/Poland/Czech Rep pollution at base level is excessive. It is therefore somewhat amusing that corporate Germany alongside the EU Commission and Council tinker wit automotive matters while disregarding the pollution from source in the generation of electricity for manufacture. Then when one analyses pollution and offset mitigations in such as EVs we enter a fantasy world of "zero pollution" at point of sale (with tax incentives in some countries) yet heavy EVs carry dangerous chemical batteries which are charged up by electricity from filthy souces. Note also that the grossly inefficient transport system from central Europe to deep water ports for export is not achieved using eco-friendly river barges -- but it makes a lot of money for French, Belgian and Dutch ports as well as the UK's string of large East Anglian ports whose capacity exceeds the 3 top Continental portage combined. The EU Commission's EURO 7 idea is unlikely to even be born for the following reasons: 1) hydrogen IC engines (gaseous or cell) will supplant EVs after a single generation (20 years from manufacture to landfill) as these engines have true capacity rather than torque and can be used in heavy vehicles as well as motor cars; 2) expensive mitigation as a path to zero emissions per vehicle will see the end of hydrocarbon ICs and EVs although hydrogen retrofitting of IC 'top engines' could be vital for heavy haulage and public transport without taking vehicle out of commission for long; 3) ammonia is a by product of many industrial processes and is being tested extensively in Asia because it is slightly easier to deliver to filling stations than hydrogen using current road tankers. However, it does not suit Otto cycle engines due to ignition temperature issues. 4) the EV path has at least helped to refine DC motors and Toyota's original hybrid Prius of 20+ years ago, Honda hybrids and now others. Vehicle manufacturers in the USA and parts of Europe were too late in pursuing hybrid vehicle production and design and, consequently, will make heavy losses in the short and medium term as a result. Charging ever higher prices for inferior designs packed with unnecessary and distracting electronics cannot make up for actual, clean and reliable private and public transport NEEDS rather than impositions and surveillance. The Achilles heel of software updates will disappear because products will be bought as fully working products as opposed to semi-owned "works in progress". It is time to ditch the very dubious ethic which plagues vehicular mobility. Cash offsets for pollution as used in the USA and especially Germany on our continent are cynical and harmful -- hence not being allowed in BRICS countries, southern Europe and Oceania as well as Japan and South Korea. Electricity generation for manufacturing anything has to be from renewables except in special circumstances and sealed SMRs can be used as base load fall-back in first world countries. There is no excuse for any rich country to burn hydrocarbons by the time "EURO 7" comes into force. Indeed, I doubt that the EU as it is in 2024 will even exist by then.

Well for the time being there're plenty of older simpler cheaper euro cars to go around. If Europe wants to fuck their economy let them teach themselves a lesson

More sensors, more chance of one failing. Get readyto pay more.

The idiots that come up with this are not engineers and not manufacturers. Soon they will be demanding the equivalent of turning a sausage into a lemon.

we are doomed all doomed

I can see a future in Europe, where everyone is on a pushbike because ICE cars won't be available, and the power networks will be in blackouts daily and EV stuck out of charge on the side of the roads.

This is ridiculous. Is there any way we can protest this? For all the reasons pointed out in this video, plus EVs aren't the answer, they're currently not any better for the environment than ICEs, and even if they ever do it'll only ever make a marginal difference, and are completely impractical for most people.

I'd like to see the data that claims automatic transmissions are more fuel efficient than manual. In my experience the automatic gearbox is much heavier which obviously means more weight to propel, plus the fluid flywheel/torque converter slips on average around 12-14% with some bigger applications like the larger diesels going up to 20% slip. In comparison to the almost negligible 1-2% slip of a manual clutch I honestly can't see the auto being more fuel efficient. The only advantage I could see is the reduced particulates from not having a dry fiber clutch plate & maybe a higher top gear ratio as is the case with the Mitsubishi Shogun auto.

"Oh well lets go out and push the car home, zero emission" 🤦🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

9:42 what new petrol car can you buy for 12,000 euros? and euro 7 does nothing to curb the sales of 3 ton SUV tanks on the road. car companies have been fiddling the standards for years. clarkson once said at the testing, the manufacturer just turned off the engine when passing the decibel meter as technically they were driving at 40kph... or the stop start system that during testing just turns off the engine for 15 minutes on the lab stand bringing the average emission down. VW had the best emissions fiddle of all. so no i dont feel sorry for the car makers. asbestos is still a thing in brake pads. that and other horrible materials is what killed a member of my family who worked in the auto industry.

The standard is fine it's the lack of an unified approach and the need to squeeze as much profit from ever step in the supply chain that is the bottle neck. That is why all the Chinese car makers kick our asses. In our cars every single screw, panel, switch or plastic cover needs to make someone as much profit as possible. Of course you're not going to be competitive if you do that :|

My Euro 6 turbocharged diesel superb is as clean as it can be. I add dipetane fuel treatment & at 170000 miles the emissions are tested as if the car was new. I use Fuchs titan oil & the car burns at most 500 millilitres of oil between services. No black smoke, ever. 58 mpg at 75 mph on the motorway. Over 60 on regional roads.

C02 IS NOT A POLLUTANT! Less C02 means Less Green. More C02 Means More Green. Also stop showing other visible Gases like they are C02. You cant see C02.

If ICEs aren't clean to run, and EVs aren't clean to build...I'm starting to think you just can't win with cars

Scam scam scam. The creatures that come up with these Green policies are lying through their miserable teeth and care nothing about emissions or saving the planet, they are driven from above by big business wanting the average motorist to have to buy new models by condemning their own good, reasonably efficient cars with insanely complex unreliable adaptations to insanely complex unreliable new engines, deliberately designed to fail at low mileages keeping the average motorists spending until they are forced off the roads. They are also driven by the need to invent work for their expensive idle hands. Old cars are Greener simply by their reliability meaning huge numbers of carbon footprint causing cars don’t need to be built at all. Remember it was Governments who told the public to switch to Diesel. The evil 👿 at the top is beyond measure and beyond most peoples ability to comprehend.

Looks like they will be going back to horses. Measure those emissions.

They loosened the regs in November 2023

Subsidies are biased financial support for something that can't carry it's own cost. When the subsidies are removed the market collapses. You take money from ex. healthcare, school etc to finance an illusional transission. Let the market take of this it self. If EV:s will have a future well the will survive without subsidies. If not, well EV:s weren't the future. There's no idea to make CPR on an already dead patient. What caused the death of EV:s 100 years ago and why havn't they been any major succuess ouside the early adopters despite serious attempts for every decade the last 100 years? In many cases you are leasing the car for three years and then after three years returning it. What's happnening then is that the old EV will be hard to sell on the used market due to higher interessed rates though lower price. You can get a new one with lower interessed rates though higher purcases price with affordable warranties instead. Some car comapnies efforts interessed rates far below the banks. Then ask your self the question: who is paying for the difference - you, the credit institute or the car maker? The EV market turns to be single use with used cars piling up unsellable. Our european harbours are piling up with new unsellable chinese EV:s . Some cars are old as 18 month. Standing in a harbour in those harsh salty weather conditions isn't good at all. Standing without any kind of charging isn't good too. I know how a car can look on it's undercarriage after standing on a wet and damp lawn for serveral years. It was brown/red = corrison even if it had good rust protection already from the beginning.

All part of Agenda 2030

The quality of cars is affected by klima and environmental requirements in production. I had a Toyota RAV4 from 2020 to 2023. I bought it from new. In my time of ownership I had to change rear lights the times. They cracked. Toyota changed then under warranty, but was very open about the problem. They told me that environmental requirements in production had degraded the quality and durability of the plastic parts.

BMW used electrically heated catalytic converters on the 750i in 1998. It can not be that hard to implement.

Electric tanks ?

While your conclusions are right there isn't enough difference to warrant a rush to EVs - there is another area you don't touch on - mining to make the EV. The EV typicaly weights 30% more. Lithium for example takes 50 tons of ore and 500 gallons of water to produce 1 ton of refined lithium. LIthium is just 7% of the battery. The water is usually brought to the surface by deep wells - water vapor is a global warming gas. Some say EVs use 10x more mining energy to make.

The transmission loss of power to a charging station is dependant on the distance. In the USA that distance is often over 300 miles so the loss is more like 15% in the USA and China; plus you lose 3-5% just charging the battery. It is very unclear how you get the "average EV"or the Average Gas Vehicle - it would be much more accurate to compare the best in each class - Such as a Tesla Model 3 against a Toyota Corolla and Toyota Prius. People buy many more efficient vehicles so averages can be very decieving depending on the mix. If you compare a Prius to a Model 3 the Model 3 loses nearly every way - except if the Model 3 has home solar.

thats why i cant buy a new larger than 300cc maxi scooter any more, even though while riding it i pollute much less than solo car drivers (99% of cars nowadays)... but i must admit it is by far more enjoyable riding behind cars nowadays, than choking and coughing in a puff of giant cloud like smoke like 30 years ago

Your analysis is flawed. Example you claim, Norway has Hydro or France has nuclear - EVs emit zero CO2 - Wrong. How much CO2 to make a dam that uses 200 million tons of contrete and 2 million tons of steel? Lots! Norway w a pop of 5 million has 56 large dams. Over 10 billion tons of concrete and 20 billion tons of steel. Simiarly nuclear requires mass amounts of energy to refine U235; then you have to also make big nuclear plants. You also Asssume - there are enough to add EVs to the power grid without any impact - wrong again. EVs would triple the load of energy. Can you make 3x more dams in Norway or 3x nuke plants in France? No

Yeah fearmongering on its peak, with no sources provided.

Prepare for civil unrest and f EU....soon tax fo co2 from breathing...

You should make a video comparing keeping old cars on the road compared to replacing them with brand new cars. Include, depreciation, built-in energy use (mining, manufacturing, fabrication energy use), and emissions. For example, the energy used to manufacture a brand new EV is more than an old 1.2L vw Polo uses in its entire 20 year life. And older cars are manufactured with much simpler, easier to extract/mine materials. It would be an interesting and educational video. This was a good video. I'm glad the YT algorithm offered it to me! Thanks.

Euro 10 will be a horse. It will just emit natural gasses. By that time we'll all revert back to being peasants, each one working his/hers own backyard to have some food available. Electricity will no longer be necessary. Europe will be the greenest region of the world.

" how can we kill the European car market?" 😢

Then there's that small matter of being able to produce enough power to charge all of these vehicles

The video is anout emissions, granted, but lower CO2 emissions does not mean lower emissions, and it surely does not mean environmental friendliness (which, again, I admit, this video is not about). EV battery ALONE causes huge, irreversable damage to environment to both environment and resources. CO2 is basically plant food, thousands upon thousands of old batteries that so far no one has an idea what to do with - are not. And the EV damage to the environment is even greater when you consider all these precious resources simply going to waste as unwanted -and soon to be unsellable EVs are starting to pile up. Yes, emission might be a factor in how environmentally friendly a vehicle is, but I bighly doubt it's of much significance. I'll take CO2 over heavy metals polluted water any day.

czcams.com/video/TXrsmYQvK8E/video.html OK Clubsport - lifecycle appears to be about 2 hours?. Hey this isn't even a record - A Porche EV set fire to 400 other EVs on the Falicity Ace car ferry and sank the entire ship in 10,000 feet of water off the Azores - the Porsche was brand new doing nothing just like these BYD Seagulls - well at least the chinese named their cars appropriately we all know Seagulls like to hang in the junk yards with all the other Junk from China.

Life Cycle please

Yes please do the new video you mentioned😁

We need ro ask any politician who is in power or is campaigning to get in power are you going to ban internal combustion cars if the answer is not a straight NO then vote them out or don't vote for that person

What about emissions produced in production of the vehicles? Ev's need to go somewhere between 40 to 70 thousand miles to equal ICE cars. Also you need more EV's to go the same distance as ICE vehicles, this is not considered. When you consider these 2 factors EV's pollute more than ICE vehicles. Think?

So why waste time with ev's

Great video very un- biased and proven data based I’d love you to do a whole life cycle video - that would be very interesting

This doesn't take into account that gas needs to be transported by car. And drilling for oil requires electricity. Also, EVs can charge when demand is low, using excess capacity EVs are a start. They aren't perfect, but it is a path to build on. The main point that is over looked is local pollution. EVs will definitely help clean up pollution in cities, which cause thousands of deaths each year. That should be in your calculations too

Is it me or did he forget to talk about the emissions created during the fuel extraction, refining and transportation process?

hmmm, your logic is flawed. To produce gasoline requires massive amounts of electricity which is often generated by coal/gas and other fossil fuels. Once a EV has been produced it can be fuelle by zero carbon emission means like solar/wind etc. so the Carbon footprint for CO2 emissions is far lower than ICE vehicles which need a constant supply of gasoline which is being produced by a CO2 rich producing industry!!

I wonder why everybody seem to forget the production of fossil fuel. Everybody seem to be focused on where the electricity comes from. Everybody, who does these comparisons, seem to forget the other side... Or, is it on purpose that you don't mention all of it?

Focusing solely on CO2 emissions is a mistake. The combustion process produces sulfur and nitrogen compounds, which are very harmful (especially locally in built-up cities where it is difficult to get a proper airflow). Additionally state power plants (both coal and gas) MUST be equipped with special filters in their chimneys, so some of the harmful emissions are captured and never leave the power plant. In your example you talk about Poland as the worst case scenario but even you stated that it was a case over 20 years ago. Currently Poland has many investments in green energy sources (its one of the fastest growing European market in PV and heat pumps) and it is in a process of building its first nuclear power plant. Almost 50% of Polish people are living in single family houses and about 20% of those places has its own micro-PV that is able to support their usage of power. In these cases we are talking about almost no emissions from driving. Another error in the material is the failure to take into account the operating time of vehicles. Internal combustion cars tend to increase the amount of emissions (and reduce their quality) as they are used due to wear of system components. Many cars do not even have some elements of the exhaust system because catalytic converters are often stolen in some places and owners do not want to reinstall them later. The material was created very superficially and without any involvement in actual research on the topic

You calculated the loss of electricity for transportation, but you didn't calculate the emissions of transportation of gasoline or even it's extraction and refinery. Theses are not 0 and have an impact probably higher than the electricty transportation.

Just found the channel. Great video. You are criminally undersubbed