Are Electric Cars really so GREEN? The Ultimate Verdict
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/arvinash Start your free trial TODAY so you can watch “Climate Challenge" about how climates on opposite sides of earth are intimately related: www.magellantv.com/series/cli...
SOURCES
Detailed Paper on EV emissions: tinyurl.com/yyad2dxn
Nature paper on EV worldwide: tinyurl.com/2qch9kld
Gas emissions by powertrain: tinyurl.com/2qtduxos
CO2 in transport sector: tinyurl.com/2nz786h7
MIT paper on mobility: tinyurl.com/2exa8zt7
Calculate how green is your EV: tinyurl.com/2manz6y6
EV myths from EPA: tinyurl.com/yepxtavf
Transport sector CO2: tinyurl.com/2fjdet3p
Global CO2 emissions data: tinyurl.com/2zxnqfy3
Battery manufacturing CO2: tinyurl.com/y9lnczzr
Life of EV batteries: tinyurl.com/2zh3yahk
Article on dead EV batteries: tinyurl.com/yfvfyvhu
CO2 impact by fuel type: tinyurl.com/y6eoe98u
Electricity maps: tinyurl.com/2me78r6z
Electricity mix date: tinyurl.com/ye22lbwg
Global greenhouse study: tinyurl.com/2cajqmv6
Support us and be the first to watch and comment on videos: / arvinash
CHAPTERS
0:00 Factors to consider
2:04 CO2 source and EV stats
4:25 Inefficiency of Internal combustion engines
5:25 How much gas cars pollute vs EVs?
6:36 Accounting for CO2 produced in manufacturing
8:00 How long EVs need to be driven to be greener
10:42 Personal vehicles are a small percentage of overall CO2
12:44 The issue of batter recyclability
14:21 Overall picture
SUMMARY
Electric vehicles are not necessarily greener because they create no emissions. We have to take a look at the bigger picture. Source of electricity, depending on the fuel, can produce greenhouse gases. Manufacturing the components of the car, such as batteries also makes CO2. We review CO2 produced by EVs compared to gasoline cars throughout their lifetime.
EVs are about 9% of all new cars sold yearly, and only 1.4% of all cars on the road. The main issue is carbon dioxide emissions from petrol or gasoline cars which causes climate change.
The common internal combustion gasoline engine is inefficient. Only 20-35% of the energy produced from burning the fuel ends up turning the wheels. But in electrical vehicles, about 75-85% of electrical energy is used to propel the vehicle.
How much do gasoline cars pollute? On average worldwide, a gasoline engine car produces 202 grams of CO2 per km driven. When taking into account the CO2 produced from the electricity generated needed to charge the EV battery, they produce 83 gCO2 per kilometer driven - a difference of 119 gr if CO2 in favor of electric vehicles.
But we have to take into account the CO2 generated during the manufacturing process of electric vehicles. Manufacturing a typical gasoline car releases 7 tons of CO2, whereas manufacturing a similar sized electric car releases 10 tons. So EVs produce 3 tons more CO2 in the manufacturing process.
So, EVs are not greener compared to gasoline-powered cars from day one, when considering that they have a substantially larger carbon footprint immediately after they are manufactured. So we have to consider how long, or how many kilometers they would need to be driven in order to make up for the higher CO2 generated during their production.
The math shows that an EV breaks even after it has been driven 25,210 km. But experts estimate that the average EV battery will last at least 200,000 km. So over the life of the vehicle, in most countries, an EV will be greener.
There are 5 countries where on average EVs will not be greener even over their lifetime - India, Estonia, Poland, Czechia and Bulgaria.
#electriccars
But overall cars only only account for 8-12% of overall greenhouse gas emissions. The most significant contributor to global greenhouse gases, 40%, comes from Electricity and heat production. So finding more eco-friendly ways to produce electricity will have a greater impact on CO2 levels than EVs.
In carbon dioxide numbers, you will create about 19 tons of CO2 over the lifetime of an EV, but more than 55 tons of CO2 for a gasoline car over its lifetime.
Here is an overall summary
• Over the lifetime of a car, an electric vehicles are greener in most countries of the world.
• EVs would not be a greener alternative in India, Estonia, Poland, Czechia and Bulgaria.
• Electric cars batteries may harm the environment unless we can recycle their batteries
• Raw material supplies may be limited which may have a geopolitical impact - Věda a technologie
There were several comments saying that I did not take into account the CO2 released in the pumping, refining and transportation of crude oil. While indeed, these processes emit CO2, we should remember that at least 60% of the electricity produced world wide uses fossil fuels, including coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases. So in order to be fair, the CO2 emitted in the extracting, refining and transportation of these fossil fuels must also be taken account for electricity generation. In my view this aspect is somewhat of a wash for both gasoline-powered and electric cars. And even without taking this into account, we can see that the conclusions of this video would still be valid, from the most conservative viewpoint.
On the other side another minor inefficiency of the transport of electricity via the grid and other supporting infrastructure, with the projected necessary expansions (in case EVs quickly ramp up in numbers) and their associated emissions also worth a mention. This gets complicated fast because one can argue the extensions of the grid becomes important anyway, and just how much is due to ev adoption could bee debated. An other interesting question is how EVs lower direct air pollution in the cities air which can depend on factors like where, and what kind of power plant provides the charging.
That being said it is fair and excellent video about how we should look at these problems from an objective point of view.
One more thing to consider though, mass transport via electric trains are even more efficient.
What did you mean when you said "there is some controversy over why the temperature is rising"? Anthropogenic climate change is a consensus scientific position, and any controversy is in the details, not in the broad strokes. This phrasing risks giving the public the wrong impression.
PS.: That pie chart at 2:52 definitely does not illustrate a 9% share.
Also: sure, used EV batteries are not designed to be easy to recycled, but don't you think it would be easier to refine or extract raw materials from a battery pack, rather than from much larger volumes of dirt and rock? This is the real interesting part you should do a video on, because it's a big opportunity in the grand scheme of things: think about the CO2 emissions involved in big mining projects, which you've factored into the environmental impact of EVs, and compare that with the energy requirements of battery recycling. Suddenly the big picture looks much brighter!
@@epgui While I agree with your viewpoint, in the US the reason for the change is controversial, many people dispute the cause of climate change. I am acknowledging that fact for US viewers.
I can't understand why the carbon footprint of the mining, transport, refining, transport, transport, and transport of diesel and petrol (gas), before it's even in the car, is never incorporated in these comparasions. The effects of fracking, drilling (and leaks), evaporation at the pump, are also seldom mentioned.
Mainly because it would make things look even worse. The same mining is needed to get the resources needed for cobalt. Often it is mined together with other things, like copper. Sadly, where there is cobalt, there often is also materials that are radio-active. Making the process, locally, even worse than 'normal' mining.
This is why its mostly ignored. Because there isn't much difference, if not straight worse.
@@Shangori cobalt is mined once (and most EVs now are using, or moving to LFP = no cobalt) for an EV. Petroleum is mined for every time someone fills the tank. That's a major difference
@@foley.elec.services Might as well bring up solid state batteries. Talking about the future is a bad idea here. Can talk about fusion all I want, if it isn't here yet, it isnt here yet.
And seeing how rare cobalt is, it currently is not viable to mine 'just' for cobalt.
@@Shangori dude, do a bit of research on LFP. It's only high performance (eg. plaid) that use cobalt and nickel chemistry. My Corsa-e and my wife's Dacia are both cobalt free LFP
That would expose the real dirty reality about BEVs, and destroy the reason of BEV enforcement. The reality is, without investing into Nuclear Reactors, and more sustainable battery Cells Chemistry, this switch won't change much about total Carbon emissions.
You forgot the maintenance, thousands of mechanical parts that have to be produced for a motor engine, oil, oli filters, breaks etc.( Evs use regenerated break mainly) is a hole polluting industry that exist only for maintenance of a petrol cars.
Yes, I did not get into this in detail, other than mentioning that EVs are mechanically simpler. So let me take this opportunity to point out the complexity of components necessary to support the internal combustion engine in a car, that would not be present in an EV:
1) Water coolant system for engine temp control
2) Exhaust system for exhaust gases
3) Electronic Ignition system
4) Fuel storage and delivery system (fuel pump, fuel line, or fuel tank, fuel injection system)
5) Sound deadening (muffler) system
6) Gas scrubber systems (catalytic converter)
All these components take resources to manufacture and maintain, which would be eliminated in EVs.
@@ArvinAsh Is thousands and thousands of parts and fluids, dealerships make more money during the life of the veicule in maintenance than in the car itself, obvious working hours is a big factor, but even so, all this parts is another polluting industry by itself.
@@ArvinAsh Sounds almost like a chatGPT list answer. haha. Which is totally fine, as it make sense. The 6th point mention “catalytic converters”, which contain elements such as palladium, rhodium and platinum, whose mining impact could be the subject of an entire video, as it's probably not better than cobalt extraction that you mentioned in this video
@@ArvinAsh EVs have a battery cooling/heating system and need energy from the battery to heat/cool the cabin.
Great video. Thanks.
@@migsvensurfing6310
That's a sealed system.
No politics, no BS and very thorough. You’re awesome man! Great video.
Just 100% wrong. C02 does not trap heat, it’s a very heavy gas that sits at the surface. It’s been way hotter in the past, look up Medieval Warming period. The Greenland Ice cores show we are in normal temp ranges. All BS.
Yeah but he forgets to mention the environmental damage extracting the rare earth metals required to build an engine for these care in addition to the use of child Labour in the democratic republic of the Congo.
Climate change is a lie
@@giftokoh7153thats for cobalt and evs don't use cobalt niw
At 5:38, the chart shows ~200g/km of CO2 for a gas car. However, it seems they never account for the drilling for oil, the refinement process, and the transportation. If we are going to factor in every detail regarding electricity generation, then we need to do the same for gasoline, comparing apples to apples, not just tail-pipe emissions.
Oil products including diesel is used extensively to produce electricity, so it is not always a useful figure to use. In the US, natural gas is used extensively to produce electricity. This also has a CO2 footprint. The main takeaway should be that EVs are greener long term. Any CO2 saved from producing fossil fuels would be icing on the cake.
@@ArvinAsh My point was, when these comparisons are made, *everything* should be taken into account. Otherwise how do we have a true contrast? The electricity used to refine one gallon of gasoline will propel an EV further than that gallon of gasoline will a gas car. So the gas car is actually creating CO2 from burning the fuel, and also from the electricity the refining process requires, and several other sources of CO2 to maintain the gasoline supply. Petroleum is used very little to produce electricity, yet it is used exclusively to propel gas cars (as well as for oil changes).
Aside from greenhouse gases, not being energy dependent upon countries who aren't very friendly is a huge bonus. We spend a trillion dollars +/- per year on defense to protect ourselves from countries building militaries with fossil fuel money or being forced to deal with those with horrific human rights records.
Of course, one must also take into account the fact that as more and more EV’s come into use, more and more charging stations must also be manufactured, which will also cause more CO2 to be released. Secondly, the current (no pun) electrical grid in the US, and I would think in other countries cannot handle the increased demand for power if the majority of vehicles become EV’s. This will also need to be replaced (i. e. manufactured) as well, releasing more greenhouse gases. The EV solution cannot take place overnight. It will take years, if not decades.
Excellent, insightful summary. Arvin, where would hybrids fit in your analysis?
Stellar breakdown, Arvin.
Great!! Just amazing, lot of useful information.
Excellent video. Thank you!
Even the people making the EV’s are shaking their heads in disbelief as to why Politicians are pretending they are green. They should of kept with cleaner emissions from ICE cars.
Great work Arvin - I've read quite few articles on this topic (overall efficiency and benefit of EVs in contrast to ICE-based vehicles) and your video is _exceedingly_ well done. This topic is very complex, with myriad facets and you did it justice. I also appreciate the neutral tone you took focusing on just the facts and considerations. Great job, again!
Love this video. Especially the Nuclear plugs. Great job Arvin.
Great topic and video!
5:14 - It’s worth pointing out that this 75-85% number includes losses charging and discharging the battery. Just the motors themselves are on the order of 90% efficient.
6:45 - Actually, although lithium ions are what transfer charge between the electrodes, lithium batteries are only around 7-8% lithium. Other elements, like cobalt and nickel, are bigger concerns. Also, the most common lithium-mining method is not an extremely energy-intensive process, but it is a very water-consuming process. It’s also worth pointing out that most new battery-manufacturing plants are designed to run on renewable energy, so that part of the process is less carbon-intensive.
9:25 - Indeed! Most people don’t fully grasp just how inefficient a space- and weight-constrained internal-combustion engine is, especially when rarely allowed to run under optimum RPM and temperature conditions in general.
That’s one of several ways that hybrid vehicles reduce fuel consumption, BTW: They endeavor to shut off the engine entirely, except when it can operate at close to optimum conditions.
Just commenting to give the above comment a little more visibility, because these are all very important aspects.
@@danieloberhofer9035 thanks!
EVs are awful 'fake greenery' gone mad.. Lib-Con forced mass sales scam - one of far too many... They made the time we were all MASS-FORCED to 'upgrade' our light bulbs to HIGHLY POISONOUS flourescant, 'long life' bulbs that were half as bright after one year, and were half as bright in the first place compared to incandescent light bulbs that handily heated the room a bit too.. CRAZY-NASTY FAKE GREEN BULLSHIT...
--
Petrol's ease and power to weight ratio cannot be beaten. CO2 emissions should NOT be regulated but all vehicles and factories should be made to only emit (near enough) PURE CO2, O2 and H2O only.. a mostly Iron, plastic and carbs economy is much easier to recycle and manage than one reliant on ever rarer, evermore exotic, difficult to produce materials.. Your Fake Green 'sustainable energy profits' scams go hand in hand with the Fake Green hyper-junk, mega-polluting, land-filling, inefficient, EV Revolution.. Unaffordable cars for The Masses, power and heat.. NEO C*NTZ of the Internazti Neo World Order(s)..
It does not take into account the efficiency loss in the production AND the transmission of the electricity. That number is isolated to the vehicle only once the electricity is in the vehicle.
@@The1stDukeDroklar
OK, let's do that.
And
Consider the grid energy used to refine fossil fuel.
(It's about the same amount used to either move an EV a set distance, or refine fuel to move an equivalent ICE vehicle the same distance.
The "Electricity cost" is equal when the EV had a "full battery" and the ICE beside it has fuel for the equivalent range.
The difference?
The moment you move those vehicles, the EV is "Paid for" in terms of the energy AND pollution.
The ICE vehicle moving is ALL pollution as the fuel burns.
.
It's not even close
this channel is a jewel. Im happy I found this.
Shouldn't we take into account the process to create fuel for the powerplants and for the combustion engine. And also the infrastructure to distribute it for people to be able to get it? (Gas stations, fuel deriving from oil, charging stations, etc)
I agree and my view is If you scale that one percent ev's worldwide to 50 or 75 percent or so, all the grids in the world need to be fortified to deliver the power needed to charge al those ev's as fast as possible. This will take A LOT of copper for example. Powerplants need to be built (hopefully nuclear) to supply for the increased demand of raw electricity and the people who build all that infrastructure need to be fed. Extra factories for billions of batteries need to be built and new mines need to opened for the resources for those batteries and infrastructure changes. Charging stations need to be built everywhere and in theory you would need more of them because it takes longer for an electric car to fill and you drive less km with a full battery compared to a full tank. And i probably missed some more yet unknown issues we need to take into account.
In my personal opinion the EV remains a technical utopia if we do not manage to control the total energy balance and conversion efficiency. The energy source/storage with the highest conversion efficiency (as you may know, energy is always converted, never 'won' or 'lost') and the highest energy density (joules/kg) will always win in the long run, we only need to find and combine the best ones, like nuclear ( 1 kg of uranium replaces about 1000 kg of coal i think) for electricity generation.
@@fredhawken1112 All good points, and for reasons like those I don't think the future of electricity management will look anything like the current system does now. When petrol took over from the horse and buggy, there were alot of projections for future needs based on what horse and buggy travel required. Same stuff is happening now.
Safe to guess however that a complete replacement of petrol vehicles won't happen soon. Petrol and electric vehicles both thrive economically under different conditions, so alot of people will probably end up with one of each. Gas or diesel as a backup/for long trips, and electric for around town use.
Further speculation might suggest solar panels will become a standard feature on electric vehicles offsetting several miles of demand per day(the ultra efficient three-wheeler in California is rated at 20 miles/day from onboard solar for example). Solar Panel technology is rapidly improving as well, it's getting cheaper and simpler to tie solar power harvesting into homes. The benefits will only become more notable and economical as electricity prices go up(seems a safe bet they will).
In many rural locations going offgrid vs connecting to utilities for a new home build is already a cheaper option, and adding in a few panels to support a car(batteries are the expensive part of solar implementation) is a negligible expense. Especially with a petrol backup, an electric car can double as a booster to offgrid energy stability(when it rains a week straight for example.)
Electric cars are a much younger technology than ICE vehicles. There's alot of growing room. Different locations will be better suited for different ratios of each as well(imagine living in a place where the average temperature is negative with anything BUT an ICE vehicle, not happening).
In conclusion I'd offer that electric vehicle adoption won't look like we might straight-forwardly project it will, ICE vehicles will remain a mainstream choice of travel working synergistically with electric vehicles, and the rapid exploration and improvement of complimentary electrical systems will have a multiplicative effect on the speed at which these systems get adopted.
@@fredhawken1112 We need 1 KWH for 5 to 6 km driving with an EV, Average 10500 miles (17000 km). We need LESS than 3000 kwh/year for this. When you buy a new desktop (including monitor, printer, router for internet etc) it will use (most people keep there computer running) 7*24 350-500 watts of energy , most depending on the graphics card.
That thing also uses 3000kwh/year taking 350 watts consumption.
And you are telling me that the grid cannot support EV's but can support PC's?
EV's can be charged during the night time....when other demands are low. This means that there cannot be a grid issue with EV's as reason.
1 kg of Uranium is ~3000 TONS of coal, so 3 million times more energy dense
I personally think that the best reason to buy battery-electric cars is simply that _they are just better cars_ ! They’re more responsive, quieter, faster-accelerating, and smoother in every sense. They also require a lot less maintenance.
If you can charge at home, they’re more convenient to fuel up: 5 seconds to plug in at night (once you get it all set up), and five seconds to unplug in the morning! Yes, road trips are more involved, but most people only take a 3-4 road trips per year. Most EVs’ GOS navigation systems include navigation through DC fast-charging stations, which are increasingly common.
For most people, they’re also cheaper per mile, although that varies a lot by locale.
They keep smoke out of residential and pedestrian -intensive areas.
Very well done. 👍
A nice video! Still I have many concerns. Can an ev battery be regenerated? At what cost? What about disposing it? What about environmental issues and how much impact would it have if 90% of vehicles would be EV? How much CO2 does disposing battery emit comparing to scrapping a combustion engine car? What is an average lifespan of both solutions? What about economic costs? Most people can't afford EV at the moment anyway. The biggest problem I have this transition into ev is strongly influenced by politicians and the history teaches us it ends very badly most of the time. This also creates misallocation of resources in economy and waste of energy itself.
Great overview 👍
Also at 8:20 the EV break’s even slightly sooner since would be polluting more those 25,000 km.
Thank you for the great video. It explains the issue very well. Possibly the only one video in youtube that captures the big picture.
Forgot a very important step - you have to clear the forests to mine lithium. Then leave a toxic disaster where nothing grows after it has been mined. Then calculate impact on water and environment from mining lithium.
Excellent talk
Effective public transport is not a thing in the UK unfortunately unless you in London.
This is the only channel that I don't skip the ads section, because it's really interesting!
I would love to see you produce a similar program about the humble lightbulb!
Super interesting, as usual
Excellent video Ash 👌🏻
Excellent presentation of a relatively obscure topic for most of the viewers.
At personal level there is another problem. I understand that for optimal battery life, EV should be driven for about 20-25 KM a day. Assuming that this is correct, it poses problems to persons who use the car only during weekends or short trips.
Another amazing video👏👏👏👏
Denmark today: The wind is blowing and 124% green energy has been produced.. Most days it is windy in Denmark. And the energy is produced by wind turbines. In the news in Denmark, when presenting the weather, also mention the day green energy production. We have Europe's cheapest electricity after Iceland.
In Denmark people ride bicycles. In America people drive huge F150's to the corner store. They won't wear masks because it damages their brains. What would a bicycle do?
@@mymonster156 Yes, we are responsible people .. peace .. Go Vikings
@@mymonster156 A bicycle can damage your brain . We wear helmets , like Vikings do . And we always have a tailwind on the cycle path . THAT´S BY LAW
@@TorbenMougaard26.. haha, I forgot!
Excellent video
its an alright video, he left out a number of factors, such as what about hybrid cars, what about having enough resources to even replace all of those vehicles, what about since EVs tend to be heavier, the wear and tear they cause on roads, what about other solutions such as an increase in public transport as an option. what about making cities more bike and ebike friendly. making things walkable. I feel like changing every vehicle to an EV is an extreme scenario, that should be considered as a last result. as we could easily do other things with the infrastructure that we already have available to significantly reduce out pollution output to reasonable levels. For me I would honestly love to take the bus everywhere, however, in the US buses tend to not have enough routes, or a large bus station that you can go to. then when it comes to greyhounds and longer bus transit, it is less expensive to drive a car than it is to take a bus. With that price the time of travel tends to be 4 to 5 times as long, making a 2 hour trip into a 8 hour endeavor. Making public transport more of an option, or just making sidewalks so that it isn't dangerous to walk outside is a much much cheaper and more effective way to reduce emissions than trying to replace 10s of millions of cars. I wish you went into more detail about other alternatives than just 'oh an ev is better that's what you should look to get in the future'. cause again road damage such as potholes are caused by heavy vehicles traveling across them, so increasing the average weight of a car by several tons will significantly increase road damage causing entire roads to need to be replaced much more often then the current 30ish years. with that I believe hybrid cars are an excellent remedy for this issues, as some hybrids are bordering on 50 miles a gallon, and their efficiency has only been increasing. oh and how could I forget the increase to the electric grid due to so many more people owning evs that's a whole another issue.
sorry for the rant, i would just rather not have to drive at all, heck for the summer i was driving 17 miles round trip per day to get to work. I just used an ebike, which has much less impact on the environment.
'Only 5% of electric car batteries are recycled'. Yes, this is true, but as you say, the rest is used for second life batteries. None are being put in landfill - they are too valuable! Also, the CO2 cost of the batteries when widespread recycling is implemented will come down significantly as the raw materials will not be mines and refined.
None for now. But if all of the cars in the world were electric now, how many batteries would simply be disposed of?
@@awesomedavid2012 None. 95% of the battery can be reused, so once the electric vehicle numbers have stabilised, you will not need to dig up any minerals
@@awesomedavid2012 do you throw away electrical cables at the end of life ? No ! Why ?..because someone will buy that scrap from you, process it, and resell it...........just like a lithium-ion pack
Actually car batteries are being recycled. The 95% comes from general battery waste, like phones, laptops, power tolls etc. EV's are actually helping to solve the problem, making recycling of all batteries viable.
You should consider the costs of Oil and Co2 for production, extraction, car consumption, and oil leaks into Nature into this study
Great video, but as a Czech, I can't see how we could switch to more renewables in the near future. The sun just doesn't shine here that much, we don't have that many usable rivers like Scandinavia, and even wind isn't very viable because we don't have sea.
The only option seems to be nuclear but we haven't even started to build new reactors (although one seems to be on the way).
couldn't you theoretically form treaties or unions with other countries to help fund their green energy revolution with the stipulation that you get some of that energy back to Czechia?
The countries in Europe, who has favorable coastlines are putting up more wind power than they will be able to use themselves all the time, so don't worry it will average out, you'll get renewable power too, even if you have no wind turbines.
Then focus instead on sustainable infrastructure instead. How is the public transport in Czechia? Have you heard of the recent measures to pipe heat around neighboring buildings in industrial complexes to recycle some of the waste heat? adding on to that, is there any chance to push for more geothermal where you are? (I don't know the geology of the region)
@@howdy832 Thanks for the reply. I believe public transport here is more than okay, for example we have perhaps on of the densest railway networks in the world. Geothermal is a no go unfortunately, Czechia lies in a geologically very old part of Europe. Heat pumps are increasingly popular for people to power their homes but I haven't looked at the enviromental friendliness of it.
Haven't heard about the heat recycling, will look into that. Cheers!
@@Javaman21011 Thanks for the reply. I'm no expert but I think that is exactly the way it goes in the EU. Countries like Germany, Scandinavia or France are betting on renewables in a big way, but I'm afraid it still won't be enough without nuclear energy. (Again, not an expert.) Getting rid of coal should be the priority, I think everyone agrees on that.
Also, all in all, I think Czechia is a net exporter of energy thanks in big part to our nuclear facilities.
For care, yes. But, my electric bicycle, one that I often pedal with from time to time, the energy used to charge its battery from the grid is likely energy that might have been lost just getting into my home from the power plant.
Arvin: Could you please do a video on how electricity "Actually" travels in transmission lines and powers our devices and compare the classical theory to the actual quantum reality of electricity? thanks
"Travels in",, I remember a physics professor telling me that the majority of charge flows on the surface of the conductor not through it. If you want to increase current flow you use lots of strands instead of one wire, in doing so you increase the surface area.
13:20 why would anyone put them in land fill? Even after the battery has degraded enough that it's no longer got enough capacity that it's not useful in a EV that can still be used as grid storage as it doesn't matter about the capacity to weigh ratio if it's not moving anywhere
Main reason is cost. Currently, it's more costly to recycle them than to create new batteries. Existing batteries would need to become more recycle-friendly, and recycling would need to be more widespread.
@@ArvinAsh My point is that they don't need to be recycled after the useful life as a EV battery because they are still fully functional, they just don't have the same capacity as they used to but they still store energy
There is no need for any EV battery to ever go to landfill czcams.com/video/JqlOlqK_ot8/video.html
The relative low efficiency of the internal combustion engine is only very marginally linked to the fact that mechanical energy is being generated in 1 of 4 cycles. It is strongly linked to how much mechanical energy is being "captured" in that one cycle it is being created and how much is being "wasted" (as heat, mostly). 2 stroke engines have lower efficiency than 4 stroke engines.
Very good.
One more potential advantage of electric cars is that being simpler mechanically, less maintenance may be required and thus with proper maintenance, the useful life of the car may be longer. Internal combustion is a violent process that generates wear & tear on a lot of components; EV much less so. Of course, that's a potential advantage, depending on actual maintenance habits but also willingness of manufacturers to provide economical ways to replace batteries when performance drops, but the car otherwise still have lots of life left in it. Also depends on people not wanting to get a brand new car every 5 years or so. Which may actually be the biggest issue here.
I would expect lower maintenance costs long term. Although EVs on the market today have not proven to be so.
Wonderful presentation. I hope this enlighten many people that are usually EV enthusiast and missing always the whole picture just out of pure ignorance. That EV vehicles are the future is highly questionable despite forecasted evolution of the EV technology. Today, Implementing EV vehicles and 2050 agenda (will never happen) is just a question of political and financial interest, nothing to do with environmental concerns. Which politicians do not care about. From a technological standpoint of view, my bet would be hydrogen or fusion energy by 2100 so long politicians allow it. We are nowhere close.
Even if different people and country drive differents amount per year, but perhaps a better statistic is what is the average life time of a car in KM? And i would say almost every car produced at least is drive up to 100 thousand kms if not more.
Another important point of comparison when it comes to CO2 produced during operation is between electric automobiles and other modes of transportation.
Automobiles are, regardless of their motive power type, a much less efficient form of transport than almost any form of mass transit. They expend a lot of energy just to move the vehicle, which can only ever carry a handful of passengers and frequently carries just the driver, and they occupy a relatively large physical volume of space on the road. A larger mass transit vehicle -- like a bus -- uses less energy *and* a smaller volume of road occupied per passenger per mile/km.
On top of that, rubber-wheeled vehicles on asphalt roads are inherently much less energy-efficient than metal-wheel vehicles on metal rails: the former has a lot more rolling resistance just to move. You can also chain railed vehicles together much more easily, amplifying the energy expended per passenger per mile/km advantage even further.
All these advantages and disadvantages add up and multiply one another. At a certain scale, and depending on the power source used to charge the EVs, a fleet of cutting-edge EVs becomes more polluting than a 100-year-old coal-fired steam locomotive pulling enough passenger cars to move the same quantity of people over the same distance in the same time.
EVs alone aren't going to solve climate change. We need mass public transit, and we need it on an epic scale in a hurry.
TL;DR:
car bad
train good
If I had to choose between mining for lithium, or recycling used lithium battery cells, I'll bet recycling used lithium cells has to be close to an order of magnitude easier than mining for fresh lithium.
Arvin, please consider making a video about synthetic fuel for internal combustion engines.
Thank You!
Regards!
One thing is overlooked here. As demand for EVs reaches parity with IC vehicles, the demand for electricity will sky rocket and unless there's a giant shift towards cleaner energy production then it's moot.
There's a whole host of other problems not related to emissions like infrastructure for charging, poor range and reduce performance in colder climates where a higher demand is placed on the battery from tempreture and additional power draw for ancillaries.
I don't hate the EV revolution. But it's been vastly oversold.
Nuclear energy is the only realistic solution to the world's energy problems but its a long way off.
I don't disagree with that assessment. Nuclear is probably not going to be a savior because, at least in the U.S., nuclear power plants take 10-20 years to get approved and built. However, even in the worst case scenarios, natural gas-fired, and diesel-fired power plants could be built fairly inexpensively and quickly. And these would still be much greener than ICE cars.
@@ArvinAsh I'm honoured Arvin!. Really enjoy your content and the community engagement!. Thanks!.
The ongoing extraction, production, and transport of oil/gasoline requires energy and releases emissions as well, so I think that's fairly equivalent to EVs reliance for ongoing fossil fuel electricity. But ideally, owners of EVs would have a solar option to recharge at home to offset, if not eliminate, that reliance.
at 3:40 What is O(sub 8)? I've never heard of that molecule.
How much Co2 does private jets produce?
Are the rich producing more but telling the average person they are producing too much?
6:30 I don't understand, why the brand logo is blurred here? Tesla cars are shown with their logo clearly seen
I'm not a car guy. Selfishly, a car with fewer moving parts and less maintenance headaches has a lot of appeal.
Don't forget the emissions that occur from processing oil into gasoline, and if you want to be technical, the emissions from wars fought over control of oil producing countries such as Iraq.
I live in Brazil and have used ethanol from sugar cane (100% renewable and not contributing to global warming) as fuel since 1986 (when I started driving). Most cars are “flex”, meaning you can choose between ethanol and gasoline. Worth mentioning that gasoline in Brazil contains 22% ethanol. A portion of Brazil is already “carbon free” concerning fossils fuels and switching to EVs will not help on that. I also produce my own eletricity (500-800 kwh/month on solar panels) and would like to to have an EV to save on fuel. However, we are far from a positive business case here… an EV cost 3x (or more) than a flex car and it doesn’t pay off during the most of its lifecycle. Once it drops to within 20-30% of a flex vehicle, I will consider it
Require all commercial buildings to be better insulated, no more naked glass and steel
"That's *petrol* powered to SOME of our international audience!?" You mean ALL of your international audience! 🤣
This is great, thanks! So....is a hybrid worse than both or better than both??
The answer depends upon the use case, details matter, but that is normally overlooked by purest.
Hybrid could be better than ICE depending on the electricity source in your area. Generally, for a similar sized vehicle, I would expect it to fall somewhere in between in terms of CO2 footprint.
@@ArvinAsh Your answer is generally (or on the average) the correct one. But if someone drives significantly less than the average, a plug-in hybrid could be better depending upon one’s definition of “better” (mostly due to a much smaller battery).
Also what is your thoughts on “shadow banning)?!
In many cases your personal demand for a vehicle is not under your control at all and it is in fact dictated by the place that you live
An overlooked drawback of EV's and air quality is that a significant portion of airborne particulates comes from the rubber dust created from the friction of the tires. EV's emit just as much as ICE vehicles in that regard.
EVs would be expected to emit as much, in which case it would be a wash. So the other factors I covered would be more important aspects.
huh? don't you mean airborne particles from brake pads ? The weight of tyre residue (mass/cm3) is a LOT higher than pads, which means that it doesn't stay suspended (ie. you don't breath it)
EV weight more, so probably tires would produce more pollution
Seems to me that we could save just as much CO2 at vastly less cost by simply making cars smaller and lighter and making tax advantages for buying smaller cars. Small hybrid cars with relatively small batteries could be a good option overall, most journeys are quite short. Electric only vehicles seem to be a dead loss for the mass market, they're simply far too expensive and there's no sign whatsoever of the prices coming down, if anything they're going up.
It’s a bit complicated. It depends on the car (weight and battery size), the country (for its national source of electricity - France is all nuclear and renewable for example while Poland is mostly coal) and the drivers use case. I drive a relatively small EV and do about 70 miles per day. It works perfectly for me and beats the diesel I had before ( which I loved! ). I ‘m happy I made the switch, but I had to do a lot of homework and cost analysis to see if it was the right choice for me. At work, I got the job of assessing our field teams vehicle use, who often drive 3000 miles a month and over 300 miles per day. Factoring all things the company was interested in (CO2, practicality, cost, etc), the answer was to stay with diesel for at least another two years. Changes are always coming and I’ll be rerunning the analysis every year. One day, electric will probably win, but for their use, not yet. We live in a hybrid (sorry!) time for cars. The right answer for each person right now could be petrol, diesel, hybrid or full electric. As I said at the start, it’s complicated!😊
Long term EV car batteries can be used as storage for about a week of domestic usage. This is significantly longer than the majority of weather breaks for wind or solar. Solar generation will more often than not occur at the location the vehicle spends the majority of time > home, this is a more interesting model imho
Lunacy on stilts that's what we are dealing with. The UK is importing wood chips from North America to generate power instead of high quality coal on the doorstep.
The one thing you didn’t mention Arvin and that is that evs relocate the harmful emissions away from cities where most of us live and where most of the fossil fuel related health problems occur… So there are other benefits other than the carbon footprint…
This video is very interesting, congrats on the good work!
If we use the 2nd law?... Ultimately, moving the same mass M (a car) with the same speed V (say, 80mph) over the same distance L under the same conditions will yield the same entropy increase ds>0 provided the complete entire process (production, energy, efficiency, disposal) has been optimized for every step in both cases.
EV or gas, we will end with the same ds>0 exactly as the second law demands. One can't get something for nothing... It is not possible that ds for EVs would be smaller, unless details about gas cars were overlooked somewhere in their process and when this is corrected they'll end up with the same ds>0. That is, assuming an EV and a gas car have the same mass M.
End of life recycling for large amounts of lithium-ion/lfp batteries doesn’t exist at the moment but there are at least two companies in existence that have developed processes that prove it is possible to do it in a clean cost effective manner, one of which has demonstrated that batteries manufactured from recycled materials match those from sourced materials in terms of performance.
I’d love to see a video that compares electric vehicles to hybrids. Personally I think that battery powered cars are far from a mature technology, and are simply not practical for most people at this time.
It doesn’t help that many of the people sounding the climate change alarm are more concerned about virtue signaling than actually solving problems. They have addicted themselves to the rush of endorphins they get when they feel superior to others.
Completely forgot to include the emissions cost of drilling, pumping, shipping, and refining oil, and the military cost of soldiers and sailors lives keeping the supply lines open, through endless patrols and the occasional war.
14:49 The 4th line does not have perfect vertical alignment with the above 3 lines.
lol.
15:34 a nuclear power plant when being built produces a lot of CO2 as its main building ingredient is concrete/ cement which is a climate killer (cement causes 8% of global CO2 emissions). Of course other power plants need that, too but I think it should still be mentioned.
I really wish fuel cells caught on nationwide. There are other downsides to EVs- price, fires, and weight.
There is a reason fuel cells never took off. They make no sense.
You also have to take into account that an EV cost about the double of a gas car, this cost can be also measured in work hours for the customer try to buy the car, hour working and generating more CO2. En general the EV car will not impact significantly on CO2 emissions, will be good, but for cleaner air in large cities (no doubt is a good thing) and for the global account of some car companies.
From a futuristic point of view, there is no doubt that EV come out victorious. Electricity is much more versatile after its been produced. Imagine the emissions released just from transporting the fuel to the petrol/gas stations.
When I was in my Elementary school days, I learned that plants take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.
Why isn't planting more trees and plants a viable solution to counter the carbon dioxide emissions causing climate change?
It will help solve the problem to some degree. The problem we have currently is that we are not only producing an overabundance of carbon, but the natural sinks for this excess carbon, like trees, are also being destroyed faster than ever.
The "good" folk at the WEF can pay for any marketing stunt...
Why is the graph @2:53 so miss-leading? Is there a reason you used the 1.4% graph from the next item instead of the much different 9% your talking about at this point?
Probably because the graph is not accurate for either 9% nor 1.4%
@@zoch9797 Yeah. Not so much.
No I'm not going to take the time to measures the angles from a screenshot of such a lazy video. (And yes, this was just the first part of the lazy reporting I spotted in this video.)
But I did go to an online pie chart generator.
1.4% roughly matches what we see here. 9% it's not even close.
So bad editing, I'm guessing farmed out. But the lazy reporting makes me think Shell is the sponsor.
Did you count power loss in transmission and charging?
between 3 & 8% depending on the local grid, on or off-board AC-DC converter, battery chemestry, etc.
Great video! I'm not an expert on the topic so can't really judge the accuracy, but it seems to me like you've quite objectively summed up all the major points, both pros and cons. That's such a breath of fresh air compared to all the fanatics, be it fans or haters of EVs. From what I've learned, it also seems like nuclear is indeed much, much superior to burning fossils, in almost every possible way, so I can't fathom why so many countries are still burning fossils instead. Sure, maybe solar, wind, etc. are even better, but we have to stop burning fossils with utmost urgency, and relying purely on renewables in the very short term doesn't seem realistic for many countries. Any country that can't rely purely on solar, wind, hydro, etc. should at the very least switch from fossils to nuclear.
Maybe it is because Russia is almost the only supplier of enriched plutinoum. We need to start processing it ourself. How long will that take.
Do the CO2 numbers mentioned for gas powered cars also reflect the energy which is required to generate the fuel? Like, getting it out of the ground, cracking (not to be confused with fracking), refining and transportation?
R U new ?
in my country it takes about 1 barrel of oil to extract 20.
@@hehehahahmhmhm But that does not include cracking and refining, which both are very energy intensive, right?
You neglected to note that to produce 1 gallon of gasoline (petrol), it’s takes an *additional* 1.2 gallons in the extraction, refining, and shipping of oil/gas/petrol. So you should at least double all of the ICE emission numbers.
Further, the source of power for EV (for grid powered) is getting cleaner every day and will eventually be 100% generated from renewables and other clean technologies, all over the world.
EVs also require far less maintenance since they have roughly 1/10th of the moving parts that ICE cars have.
He ignores many of the negatives in the internal combustion engine side of the comparison with electric vehicles. I don't know if he's being deliberately misleading as is usually the case with these comparisons or just didn't learn enough about the topic before making the video.
But it looks like fuel preparation for electricity production is also not taken into account. So, both should be doubled, and the conclusion would be around the same.
The fact that electricity generation becomes cleaner is mentioned in this video.
The point is often that 1.2 gallons is also used by the power plants.
And if EVs are powered by Green sources then that is power taken from the grid, thus power of homes and buisnesses thus a net wash on overall power consumption emissions.
One thing that this presentation misses is that GHG emissions are a system wide issue and that at that level an emphasis on battery EVs makes far less sense until we have first eliminated the use of fossil fuels, especially coal for electricity generation and other purposes. As an example space and water heating are major consumers of fossil fuels, but heat pumps for those purposes often have COPs in the 2-4 range. Fossil fuels used for this purpose are then 25-50% as efficient and the heat pumps do net require high density energy storage. Also, although EVs are more energy efficient than ICs as noted, hybrids make up part of that gap and use existing infrastructure. To me the most effective way to reduce GHG emissions globally would be to emphasize, and optimize, hybrids rather than full EVs, and eliminate as quickly as possible non-transport related uses of fossil fuels, especially coal fired power plants.
Good analysis, but I'd have focused more on the issues around limited supplies of lithium, platinum and so forth. It seems like these could be a deal breaker. Is research underway into storage modalities that would get around this problem?
Lithium is fairly common, supply is limited due to the market, which is also getting in the way of EV production. Price per ton has gone from $10k US to $70k as invertors pile in.
Platinum won't be a problem since we have over a billion cars with catalytic converters on the roads. Just recycle them and also all the resources goes into building new converters (>100,000/day) can also go into batteries, motors and other green hi-tech stuff.
Veritassium has a decent video on the supply and availability if anyone is interested.
@@spindoctor6385 I've seen it. He has an excellent channel.
@@ddanielsandberg "Won't be a problem". We'll see. Every competent researcher who examines location and availability of rare earth and precious metals vs anticipated increased demand predicts that it is likely to be a very big problem. Even if all of those catalytic converters were to be recycled (highest recycling rates outside North America are 60%), world demand for electricity is rising exponentially. Recycling of solar panels is laughably low, and is not expected to suddenly become economical.
Superb.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch"
EV cars need Lithium, Cobalt and other metals - the UK are stopping sale of fossil fuel cars in 2030 and an estimate I saw that there are not enough mined materials world-wide to satisfy the demand of the UK alone - let alone a global transition to EVs. Add to that growing demand for the same materials for other technology and the wasteful cycle of phone upgrades etc. and there are rough times ahead.
It also doesn't address the child labour and appalling conditions in the mining industries, esp. for Cobalt.
Another point that is not addressed is where is all the electricity going to come from for charging? The UK and much of Europe has been worrying about the need to ration electricity this winter over gas prices - and currently charging a car in the UK is more expensive than filling a petrol tank because of huge energy price hikes.
Batteries currently pose many problems that may be reduced or eliminated by future battery and recycling technologies.
Science is working on batteries with no exotic minerals so we may end up with batteries made mostly of iron, which is plentiful, benign, and easy to recycle, for example.
Also it's good to remember that the substances in current lithium batteries are not consumed in use, so if we can figure out a viable way to recycle them, we can actually extract 100% of the lithium to reuse.
So we shouldn't limit our thinking to imagining that batteries of the future will have the same problems as batteries of today.
I drive a PHEV and think there are a few things worth considering that you didn’t cover in this video:
1. The location that the CO2 is produced. With EV’s, the CO2 is all produced at the power plant(s) - where industrial capture systems can potentially trap/filter the CO2 better before it gets released into the atmosphere. With gas cars, the CO2 is spread out and released wherever the car happens to be. EV’s help keep the air in big cities much cleaner. Industrial scrubbing (cleaning and filtering) systems don’t really exist everywhere right now, but are actively being developed and are nearing viability.
2. The extra cost of catalytic converters, exhaust systems, etc in gasoline cars. If you’re going to consider the batteries in EV’s, you should consider these components of non-EV’s.
And 3 - the most important factor of all - which doesn’t relate to CO2 at all - is energy versatility! With a gasoline car, you are locked in to using gasoline and only gasoline. A single energy source. But an electric car can be powered by coal, or nuclear, or wind or hydro or solar or any other mechanism that produces electricity.
If push comes to shove, an EV can be fueled at home with a solar panel and inverter. They will be in extremely high demand after the zombie apocalypse! 😁
The point is that the contamination happening far away in a modern power poant with minimal waste at least
One thing that cannot be forgotten in any product is the cost of transport. Both money and pollutants emitted. Most EV components are sourced from all over the world (like anything, these days, but more heavily, it would seem). That, itself, emits a lot of CO2 since it is all via diesel engines.
Right, but shipping oil from the middle east for the lifetime of the car isn't cheap either.
@@handelsm I agree. Hence why Biden killing domestic production and then begging the Saudis for oil is retarded.
Numerous companies. like Tesla and Volvo, have EV transport trucks.
@@sweiland75 What percentage do they make of the entire transport truck fleet in the US?
@@chriswhite3692 That didn't happen. Since Joe Biden took office, oil production has risen both on federal lands and on U.S. lands overall.
Would love to know the financial side of this. How much would it cost to charge a EV for 15k miles> to break even with the environmental impact? How much would it cost in petrol to drive 15k miles. What if....they used EV's to manufacture and deliver the petrol ....hmm
Currently electricity cost per km is much cheaper than gasoline. You can look it up for your area.
Arvin I have a Bolt EV. I live in CA and on a sunny day charge my car to a range of over 200 miles with solar panels on my roof. I drive for free. No emissions. Anyone in a reasonably sunny place can do this. (By the way, Na, sodium, can be used to make batteries instead of Li.)
It’s not free you fool. 😂😂 Damn humans can be so stupid
It would be interesting to do an analysis of carbon negative fuels like BioNG that are being used in California. It is almost never talked about in general media videos like this. The science based rationale of why California’s regulatory agency CARB certifies BioNG as CARBON NEGATIVE as a transportation fuel is not generally understood.
The renewable NG or BioNG credits under California’s LCFS (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) program were more than $1 (maybe twice that, which depends upon the value of LCFS Credits) per DGE (Diesel Gallon Equivalent) in 2020. It has been stated that the cost for a gallon of BioNG gas to be in the $1 per DGE range for fleets with their own facilities (hard to verify, but hopefully I will get to see a final contract price soon). The CARBON INTENSITY or CI of BioNG from EACH INDIVIDUAL PRODUCER is certified by the California Air Resource Board or CARB using an avoidance criteria that is scientifically supported. For the last three years the averaged CI of BioNG that is used as a transportation fuel in California is CARBON NEGATIVE using the interesting book keeping by CARB. Due to the subsidies the pricing is around $2.50 per diesel gallon equivalent for BioNG that is marketed as such at the pump. The cost for a fleet at an internal facility is much less.
So when you see a UPS class 8 CNG truck on the road in California it is running on RENEWABLE BioNG that is carbon negative at a total lifetime cost per mile that is significantly less than diesel and maybe less than an EV, but at least comparable depending upon subsidies. It can also have a range of 1000 miles and has the additional 2000 pound allowance so has identical maximum load capacity of a large diesel truck (and refuels in the same time as a diesel). The maximum cargo weight capacity of ev trucks is less due to the battery weight.
The NOx production of the BioNG engines is already lower than the EPA’s recently (December 2022) published final rule on NOx reduction standard for diesel engines that will come into use in 2027 (NOx standard starting at 0.02 g/bhp-hr, and ending at 0.04 g/bhp-hr at the 800,000 mile mark). The new 2027 standard is considered to be very difficult for diesel engines to attain but Cummins does have a preproduction engine that can possibly meet the requirements.
Since BioNG is methane, one must also analyze the release of methane between the “CARB CERTIFIED” production facility and the refueling point. In addition, “methane slip” within the engine must be incorporated into the analysis. In large new ship engines the methane slip is less than 1% but in smaller higher speed engines it will be higher.
One company has a linear “external” combustion engine that is significantly lower in both NOx and methane slip that maybe in production by 2030.
My understaing is that CO2 is only part of the problem of vehicles with an internal combustion engine. CO and other harmful emissions cause pollution locally, which electricity is produced efficiently by power stations (if not from renewable sources). I think the development of EVs will form part of the solution moving forward; for instance, combined with a hydrogen fuel cell onboard the vehicle.
There's bound to be teething problems with EVs but the big win is that people are beginning to see them as the norm, and so there is potential for development of cleaner technologies off the back of them. It's taken a century for people to think of electric cars as real world and not sci fi, so let us appreciate how this baby step helps us all.
I wouldn't call 1.4% of vehicles worldwide the norm. Also, at present all but the relatively affluent are priced out. Battery issues really need to be solved- weight and flammability for starters.
Need about 10-100 times as much electricity to accomplish American dreams. Nuclear is the only option, just don't build them on the San Andreas Fault. But.....common sense has vanished with Covid!
@@rweinc1424 What are you talking about? How did you come up with 10-100 times more? If to replace all personal petrol cars by electric cars, electricity production must be increased by 30% at most.
@@yansakovich projection by Elon Musk .....that includes home heating, factories, commercial building, everything!! A difficult issue relates to the thousands of airplanes in the air at any moment. They are polluting far above the clouds where it stays for years, if not longer! Your 30% is ridiculous!
@@mymonster156 I do not understand you. But I'd like to point out that I was talking about electrical requirements for personal cars only.
How can you have an "ultimate verdict" on an industry that's hasn't even matured.
Nice informative video. Sounds like the source electricity production itself is the major culprit. What's the reason EV battery recycling is only 5%? I would imagine it would hard to just "dispose" of an EV car battery in the trash.
I find this video very lacking and miss informing personally. He mentions the source of electricity for EVs as the major factor to compare there emission rates with gas cars but completely ignores the source, fracking, distillation, refining, transportation, storage and distribution of the very gasoline, oils and other fossil fuel products required to run an ICE vehicle. These processes also require a lot of energy and electricity like the machines that mine, extract and transport the refined fuels also run on them; the refineries and even the fuel pumps for dispensing the gas run on electricity, so imagine the carbon emissions generated from that alone.
The reason EV battery recycling is only 5% is because the remaining 95% are still in good use by the EV cars they're in and some that have significantly degraded have found a second life as house energy storage devices, so there's been no need to recycle as much because these batteries have been and continue to last a very long time, even more than the expected lifespan projected by their manufacturers. And like you said, it would be hard to imagine throwing away an EV battery in the trash since its basically a thick slab of precious refined metals and materials, and can still go on to be reused as other less demanding energy sources like house energy storage I mentioned earlier. Once there are more older and degrading EVs on the road, battery recycling will ramp up accordingly, but that's still after they've been completely reused to total degradation.
This is why I believe the video is miss informing viewers like you that may not be so informed on the current situation of the industry. I don't fault Arvin directly for this, but he really needs to do more indepth research on topics outside his field if he doesn't want to come out looking biased. Any reasonably informed person watching this video of his would think that immediately as they see him mention only the energy source and production of EVs but not that of ICE cars.
@@justiceifeme Good point.
the negatives with cars and electric vehicles still needs to be solves before we adopt or change to it.
clearly at this point we must stop using and making cars until we have a viable solution.
Does anyone know what the environmental impact of “scraping the ocean bottoms for lithium” is? That’s how I’ve heard it referred to. I have no expertise or knowledge on this.
How much CO2 will I need to produce working to buy one?
Great video, Arvin. I'm waiting for your critique on the fusion success claim the USA recently submitted.
That announcement was well premature. It won't have any meaning until it can generate infinite energy for something at lesat th size of a small town
Finally, a non-biased evaluation of EV's. It still amazes me that car companies can call EV's zero-emission in their ads. That is a flat-out lie, and last time I checked, that is illegal.
I don't disagree with you. Though EVs do not have any direct emissions.
@@ArvinAsh Unless you are charging it with electricity generated by a coal power plant. I consider that a direct emission. Even a "green" power generation still has a carbon footprint that is increased by higher power demand.
@@InsideOut204 The vehicle is zero emission, so the statement is correct. The air quality improvements in our towns and cities should not be ignored. and of course there are many renewable sources of electricity. Renewables are now the cheapest and fastest growing in the energy sector.