yep, they take an extreme and generalize from it.

However, no one accounts for recyling or the significantly increased wear on roads. Laying new roads is insanely polluting. And heavier EVs damage roads on average over two times as quickly.

​@@Hello_there_obi EV are not heavier than ICE cars. Do not forget they do not have a 300kg petrol engine and a 100kg tank with petrol, + 30kg exhaust pipe. Road wear caused by 40 tonnes truck not by 1.7 tonnes evs.

@@buscseik ahahahahah no. Just no. You could have googles this and spared the embarrassment. Why didn’t you?! You googled one side and not the other I just don’t understand why you’d do that 😅

Well for a start you've just plucked the 'two times as quickly' figure out of thin air. EV’s aren’t twice the weight of another comparable model so how do they cause twice the road wear? The the BMW 3 Series vs the Tesla Model 3 - 1800kg vs 2100kg which is about 16% more. Yet you claim 100% more road wear? Secondly, many of the heaviest cars on the roads currently are large ICE SUV's such as Range Rovers, Large Audi’s, Large Mercs etc. Modern cars have been getting heavier and larger consistently for at least the last 20 years and I didn’t hear anyone complaining about road wear whilst that was happening but now that EVs are on the scene and are a bit heavier suddenly its an issue. Loads of cobalt is used to remove sulphur from oil in the production of petrol/diesel and is also used in batteries in consumer electrics like mobile phones. No one has cared about that for the last 20 years but suddenly when EV’s came along, cobalt use was a big problem. Oil refineries use massive amounts of electricity. No on cares how thats produced but if an EV has any fossil fuel produced electricity in it suddenly its an issue. Bottom line is that whatever metrics you choose to use, EV’s are over all cleaner and more environmentally friendly. They are more efficient and do more with less resources and almost all of them can be recycled which isn’t true about oil being burned in an engine. They are certainly not perfect but cherry picking the odd little statistic here or there doesn’t change the fact that oil extraction, transportation, refinery, more transportation and then burning in ICE that are at best 35% efficiency and pump out poisonous fumes in the towns and cities we all live in is worse for the environment and worst for us than using EVs.

Get involved politically to change this situation? In London I'm OK for public transport but lots of the countryside places far less well. Hopefully we'll have a change of Government in the UK at the next election.

@@peterdollins3610 The UK is way ahead of the USA. It's funny to me when you folks complain about your public transport, I was there for two weeks and took the train all over the place. Your trains work very well compared to whatever we have in the USA.

I've been catching public transport to work since 1980 and haven't had an issue with it. I've seen the public transport system improved a lot since then in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. What city are you talking about?

What happened was USA imperialist economics and adoption of the American way of transportation. Look at the USA now and it's trains and local public transport. Everything there is haywire as in NZ, same thing. We're on the road to hell in a handcart.

It was planned and bribed away here in the states. Look at Philadelphia, where the houses don’t even have drive ways. The politicians allowed Rockefeller, Ford, and Goodyear to buy up most all the trolley systems in the country and get rid of them!

Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iruoa9x60bG6oIk.html

rode*

@@Goreuncle lol

And you're still slimm ...

Ditto here

I have an electric velomobile. There is an article on the internet entitled "Electric velomobiles: as fast and comfortable as automobiles but 80 times more efficient"

I've had a 2nd hand Nissan Leaf now for only 2 weeks & completely agree with what you've said! Never going back to ICE's

I ride a bike, which makes EVs seem downright filthy and wasteful by comparison. Fortunately for our environment, only the wealthy will be able to afford anything beyond the simplicity of bicycles in the future anyway.

Thanks for your contribution to the environment.Infrastructure in Australia hasn't caught up to the point that owning an EV is completely practical yet, particularly for people that live in areas where long distance travel is normal. It seems like Evs really make sense in high population areas like cities where short trips and good infrastructure are the norm. Lots of people live in cities in Australia too, don't get me wrong but if for example, one day I decided to travel 900km from Melbourne to Sydney, I'd have to think very carefully before driving a currently luxury price tagged EV. If I did own an EV, to achieve the same outcome, I'd probably need to either a) fly then hire a car which is terrible for the environment or b) keep a petrol car as well as an EV, equally terrible.

Not that balanced. I think volvo have a fairer comparison of emissions over 10 years of two of their very similar cars(one being electric and the other being ICE). From memory, it takes 3-6 years to offset the battery emissions of that volvo EV. You are already biased when you call one side naysayers. People who actually care about emissions would strive towards pedal bikes and walking where possible. Planes are top of the list of worst offenders but it's bad publicity to tell people that they should take a serious look at their overseas holidays with emissions in mind.

@@longdang2681 ride a bike or walk in 100°f weather? The naysayer is the biased one.

Not to mention fracking which uses tons of water we don't have

@@longdang2681 So you are valuing the research of one car manufacturer over an international peer reviewed body. And no it’s not biased to refer to some as naysayers. These are people that usually take the misinformation of the fossil fuel industry and repeat it as fact.

@@longdang2681 also worth pointing out that I was a very keen cyclist and runner until I nearly lost my left leg to cancer 35 years ago. Even electric assisted bikes are very difficult, as I can’t quite bend my leg enough and falling is not an option. As they tell me they can’t repair it again. So efficient alternatives are my best bet

Exactly, Peter. This is hard evidence that EVs are better, even in countries like India where most of the electricity comes from coal.

you should basically ignore those people, but EV's are catastrophically bad for the environment compared to public transport, we should be aiming to get rid of cars entirely

@@afgor1088 yes you are right brother

@@afgor1088 there is definitely something to be gained there too. Make remote work the default, perhaps even something of a policy to give people some advantage if they decide to live closer to work (if remote work is not an option). Giving everybody a restrictive flight budget. Improving international rail connectivity (Europe tends to have great national rail, but quite poor internationally). We have to do all those things and more really to make a difference. For everything we do there will be developing economies that can’t afford to think in those terms and have individuals that simply do whatever they can to get by

@@mr-boo dude, stop getting all your oppinion from youtubers

Try to keep the charge on the battery between 20 and 80%. This will sustain the life of your battery. Only charge above 80% if you're actually going on a trip that requires the extra range to reach the first charging station. Do some research to check the Optima battery charge for your particular vehicle brand. Some Tesla's battery packs have lost almost nothing after 200,000 miles. And I think there are even a few that have lost almost no range after 300,000 miles.

@@macmcleod1188 The LFP batteries that will soon be standard don't give a shit what the charge of the battery is.

Good for you. The battery tech is getting better every year with some real step ups coming soon. So when you are ready for a new EV they should be even better.

@@viperswhip it's a great technology but this car owner doesn't have it yet.

Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iruoa9x60bG6oIk.html

Given that transit will be prevalent in a car free society, it doesn't have to be costly. It becomes an expected public good and instead of spending money on car ownership we'll have money to pay through taxes or fairs for transit.

Switzerland with exception of cities and towns (like Zug), is lagging with promoting EVs and helping their growth. Fortunately public transport is pretty good.

@@karlInSanDiego "we'll have money to spend to pay through taxes or faires for transit" No you won't.

@@GTfour01 That's how I get around and I have never owned a car. Paid for out of taxes and fares. But yes not fairs, although they can be good fund raisers.

@@danielcarroll3358 So you are relatively young, you live in a large city or urban area and you do not have children. I can garantee you though, as soon as privately owned cars are banned, and the only way to move around via a system controlled by the state, you're going to be told where and when you can travel. Bye bye freedom of movement.

How much does it cost to recycle a vehicle like that? Are there any toxic substances that would need special treatment?

@@Thecelestial1 it's cheaper then mine an ore.

@@Thecelestial1 Colin, it's more likely the recycling pant would pay *you* some money, given the value of older tired EV batteries. Those not recycled are sought after by the energy repurposing business to use for energy storage in commercial, industrial and domestic applications. They may no longer be good enough to use in a car, but they're *more* than adequate for energy storage. A good example could be the huge sports stadium in Utrecht in Holland, powered by 200 old Nissan Leaf batteries charged via solar...... Plus you don't necessarily have to recycle a tired EV battery. You can have them refurbished, at a fraction of the cost of fully replacing it......

we can recycle plastic but we dont ,same as battery...

Well said. There are billions of investment going into what is known as ‘urban mining’. JC Straubel at Redwood Materials say they will produce 10 GWh worth of battery making materials this year, although their feedstock is mostly phones, laptops and power tool batteries. In France there is Renault/Solvay who have a pilot plant and Northvolt/Audi in Germany have already produced new batteries from old at theirs. EV represent an opportunity to develop a circular economy, something that could never be achieved with the ICE.

Thank you for your informative comment🎉👍

I ain’t reading allat bro😂

Opposed piston engines can be more than 50 percent efficient, but aren't suitable for automobiles. O/P engines have no valves or camshafts. They were widely used in American disel submarines but aren't used anymore due to maintenance issues. But, the mechanical problems with these engines could be overcome by ongoing research. German aircraft in the 1930s could fly 6,000 miles using o/p engines, but they didn't have enough confidence in them to attempt to bomb NY City - which they wanted to do.

Wonderful observation on efficiency. Consider that this is probably the best we can achieve as combustion engines have been around for 100 years. Ev efficiency and energy density for batteries continues to increase year after year. Very exciting times. Power production transition is also very cool. Solar efficiency is increasing finally as investment and research has increased. Can’t wait to see where we are and what we have in 2030.

F1 engines are cited to be about 50℅ efficient, but they are hybrid

@@E1Luch and it costs millions.

@@crtmojo2705 Toyota prius had almost 40℅. Energy recovery from exhaust is the main tech here. These types of cars are mentioned in the study as non plug-in hybrids

Best vehicle for environment is hybrid. Second best petrol and last EV, sadly.

Better not have a car at all. Lithium mining is also not the most environmentally friendly activity

@@vladimirsak you just admitted that you don't know how to read a chart

@@vladimirsak You didn't watch the video, did you?

@@casperhansen826 Compare with Ted talk: Contradictions of battery operated vehicles. Much better in my opinion than this video.

Not Judge Doom?

I look forward to being able to afford the upfront cost of owning an EV (either a PHEV or BEV) and upgrading my garage with a charging station. I have not yet had the opportunity, but I will eventually.

In 1997 I drove in a converted car that had the shell of a LOLA performance car on it. It was fast it was simple it had one major draw back, lead acid batteries. Limited range and heavy both that hindered the explosion of electric cars. Telsa was NEVER created by Elon Musk. He was the companies third CEO to come into play. the test car was a T-zero with lithium cells..it was the worlds first lithium electric powered car.

Matty, the key to building a near driverless city is to make it compact. Many european cities share the same construction concept, built housing over retail and commercial space and then bring all core services and products to withing a block or several block range.

@@LK-pc4sq oh yeah I know that, I'm a big fan of proper urban planning but I've had to deal with that hand I've been dealt with at the moment, & as someone who needs a car, an EV was the obvious solution

People will prefer larger, cheaper houses though.

​​@@Hello_there_obistill there can be some basic shops around this bigger, cheaper houses but law forbids shops

You have saved £1200 because your company pays that does not apply to most people how much would it have cost you to charge at home with the cost of energy at the moment, and how does someone living in a terrace street who very rarely park outside their own house go on put an extension cable across the foot path and trip up every passerby, you are very fortunate it will be very difficult or almost impossible for a lot of people

@@militarymad2840 Nope. Company does not pay. It's a government grant which applies to everyone who enquires. And the £1200 was on fuel alone. There have been other savings on maintenance and servicing which have amounted to one bottle of screenwash. It would have been 2/3rds of the saving on fuel had I had to pay. We can all find negativity when we try. Let's try to find some positives in all this instead. The biggest negative is staying with an inefficient polluting vehicle.

Cheers Andy. Good on you mate.

Good it worked for you. The thing is that one may work for you or some but won’t work for others and in reality Evs has a lots of positive it also many negatives, we all are about to discover those with the time. I believe that Toyota hybrids are one of the best cars currently and cleanest too.

@@ramblerandy2397 So who pays for the government grant? Taxpayers. So somebody pays. It's not free. Another issue has surfaced in my apartment block where the basement power points used by some people with BEV's are paid for by the body corporate as they are not individually metered. So those residents with BEVs are getting their charging at the expense of others. Again not free. Road user tax is also currently paid by a levy or excise on petrol, so again BEV users are paying nothing while ICE users are paying proportionately more. Once these issues are resolved I suspect that the cost per km of BEVs will increase and make for a more balanced analysis. FWIW I believe the BEVs are they way to go.

The lower wear of brakes is so pronounced that I have been asked by my mechanics to actually stand on the brakes weekly in order for them not to rust. Driving energy efficient has cost me 4 new brake disks...

Also, the scaremongering about battery lifecycles is wholly inaccurate. I’m sure my EV will last a lot longer (rust permitting) than most of my previous ICE cars although I do appreciate that government policy means repairing those older cars is pointless from a cost point of view.

Is the battery still running !

@@baasittantray007 it's 8yrs old done 56k miles and has full 12 battery bars

Thinking of all the emission soot, leaky fluids, and brake dust covering our roads and towns… also all these motors emitting uncaptureable heat… so gross

Yes! 🙌

"Now, what about USA army which is probably as big of a polluter as global transport?" Move from tracked to wheeled vehicles for lower fuel usage? Higher reliance on nuclear power for naval forces (more nuclear subs, less surface ships)? Fewer attacks helicopters / close air support - they are fuel guzzling, had really bad day in any near peer conflict (manpads!) and can be replaced by artillery?

North American cities are designed badly for bikes… and cars. Zoning laws have segregated homes from work from shopping from schools and all miles apart that forces car use. They need large scale mixed-use densification, put homes and offices next to, or on top of, retail, schools, etc. And stop building parking lots, shrinking roads, stop accommodating cars.

They could if everybody lived in a city AND farming Is done by hand. Bikes are an Urban only solution the same as train. I agree with you that people shouldnt use cars in cities too freely though.

How about an army of bicycle-riding soldiers equipped with Javelins? Not trying to be funny but trying to think outside the box.

Thanks. I appreciate that!

@@JustHaveaThink you’re great, thank you for all your work. Strangely soothing, cunning & informative.

Yet this guy won't EVER talk about nuclear or liquid fuels made from atmospheric CO2. Winder why not? Getting paid by 'greenies'???

@@scottslotterbeck3796 Probably not. But I think you should start your own channel and talk about nuclear and liquid fuels made from CO2.

I’ll go for that. Who will shoot/gas/drown all the worthless, non-productive people in cities?

What you describe is what Chairman Mao tired in China. People starved.

Quite a good point we need to get shops and jobs local and food going to our towns not Asda 40miles away

@@danharold3087 just because some selfish, corrupt, dictator failed doesn't mean that investing in local communities isn't a good idea.

@@grahamwilson8843 Ok, sure, but asking if we even need transportation in the first place is pretty dumb. When Joop falls off a ladder and breaks his leg, I guess he'll just ride a bicycle to the emergency room, eh?

Indeed. One can easily do an entire year's worth of travel in distance terms in one long-haul flight. And if people had to drive or pedal that distance they'd think a lot harder about badly they needed to make that particular trip.

Most likely true. Certainly in the short term, however, as the Co2 output per capita is tiny for most African nations (except SA), this isn't necessarily an issue. Africa and many developing countries are suffering the effects of climate change caused by developed nations. Therefore the efforts to decarbonise first world countries will still have a positive effect in Africa.

I have never worked for a gasoline company but I disagree with your premise that we should not feel guilty. We are all responsible and if half way intelligent have known for at least 50 years that this was coming. I remember sitting in a pub in the early 1970 agreeing with my friend that "when the Chinese get cars the Climate will be wrecked". The Chinese now have cars as well as the Indians and most of the high population countries. The idea that this was being hidden from us is ludicrous.

@@johugra1 guilt doesn't properly motivate these people.. It's why they go into denial, not why they make a positive change. Besides, most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of oil companies, politicians and the investors who pushed the propaganda. Given two bits of conflicting information, you can hardly blame the average Joe for picking one side over the other.. Especially if all his friends, and all the people he respects are saying the same thing. Just because you, having the knowledge and understanding that you did came to a correct conclusion, doesn't mean other people can do the same thing. We all have different mental, educational and social resources.

@@jameshughes3014 In reality it is not a matter of "sides" . Truth is difficult and messy. Just blaming one particular part of society is easy and usually wrong.

@@johugra1 I'd agree with that, but I don't blame society.. Instead I blame oil companies. what matters is getting people to stop polluting, and that's not complicated. Just find out why they do what they do, and fix that. The solution is extra easy if you find that a significant part of their motivation is emotional.

@@jameshughes3014 James, I was thinking that the oil companies or some of them at least did get up to various rather unsavoury activities to distort the truth about climate change. However this was actually pretty insignificant as most people were perfectly aware of the problem. I do not pretend to have any definitive answers but one point was that it would have been viewed as discriminatory if we had tried to stop development in places like China and India and we would have failed anyway.

Just add bikelanes everywhere ( Dutch city planning colonization world wide)

@@poucxs9246 How do I carry a cement mixer, cement and tools to a construction site on a bicycle or public transport?

​@@frankblack7801 I think that there are a lot of exceptions, like large scale logistics farming etc. But consider this: 80% of the people who comute to office sit alone in a 4 seat car. If you have to commute about 20 km to office within a city then doing it on a bicycle has a lot of potential benefits. less congestian, cleaner air, less noise, smoother trafic, improved personal fittness.

@@frankblack7801 Or you could take them all, on a 1 by one basis and have stamina like a horse :-P

@@poucxs9246 A 30 mile round trip on a cycle to get to work & back? 5+ × a week. Come rain, hail, high winds, thunderstorms, heat waves or freezing sub zero ice & snow . . . 😳 And possibly only for half a days work on a Saturday perhaps. Its this kind of fantasm that quite rightly destroys credibility with the green movement.

One problem with that. We have this exact problem in the Nertherlands. More people buy green energy then there is green energy produced..... Then again, I would buy exclusively nuclear power if possible so your idea has some merit but implementation is as always difficult.

Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iruoa9x60bG6oIk.html

People need to stop demonising nuclear power. It is the only power source that can be reliably available 24/7. Even some of the big hydro installations ae finding that water is not an everlasting source of energy. Of course we could just wait for Fusion 🤣

@@geoffhaylock6848 Yup. China is having a wee bit of a crisis. If that was the only one it wouldn't be a problem but they got a plethora of problems. Nuclear really seems to be the only viable solution at the moment.

Legend and an inspiration.

I have an MG ev on a lease and it saves me money.

Buying a 2nd hand 1 will cost you a lot of money. But suit yourself.

@@nozirohhh buying a second hand gas car will, EVs (the right ones at least) don't have the same issues.

I'm going to wait 6 years from now to get one. Just going to pay cash for one. I live in Saskatchewan, Canada, and the least expensive used Tesla available is a 2018 model 3 long range for $62,000.00 Good luck finding anything new around here and if you do, it will be around $100,000 which is out of most people's ability to pay. And I want more range since when it goes down to -30 to -40C here in the winter it cuts the range down dramatically. I'm hoping the range and outrageous costs are fixed when I'm ready to purchase.

El nino. El nino is causing the already bad pre-pandemic situation to get bad enough to warrant alarmism.

The only thing GM excels in is PR. There will be no GM as we know it today by 2030. Of course, they will spin off the highly profitable 'defense' section of their business because the Pentagon will buy anything at any price.

GM will probably not be around in 2030

My commute is 11km, and it's faster by bicycle than virtually any other method. E-scooter would probably have similar advantages.

I'm 60. I was car free for 30 years - big savings.

Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iruoa9x60bG6oIk.html

Good on you, I also cycle everywhere at the moment and have done for a long time, ebike, but I will have to get to EV soon cart my new family around

Works for some and not for others. Great when it does.

Lowering one's personal transportation related CO2 emissions to nearly zero is definitely a step in the right direction, but I would argue that this alone is not sufficient to "qualify for a halo". To fully reach a zero CO2 emissions lifestyle, one must not only null out their personal transportation related CO2 emissions, but also their household electricity and home heating emissions, as well as all other CO2 emissions that are occurring elsewhere in society (ex: at factories/mines/farms/commercial businesses) that are necessary in order to support your lifestyle. The average total per capita daily energy consumption by residents in the US in 2019 was roughly 250 kWh. Some of this energy comes in the form of non-CO2 emitting sources (ex: solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear), but roughly 200 kWh is due to the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. To "qualify for a halo" and actually live a true net zero emissions lifestyle at a moderately high standard of living (ex: "average" for the US in 2019), you therefore would need to somehow offset all ~200 kWh of combustion energy occurring in the economy, associated with your lifestyle. This is actually quite possible and it isn't even all that difficult, based on current prices of solar panels. It also does not require a reduction in quality of life or major changes to one's lifestyle. A person can produce approximately 200 kWh of electric energy per day, by purchasing around 50 kW worth of solar panels, and installing them in a grid tied configuration, in a reasonably sunny location. However, it should be noted that grid electricity, when produced by burning coal or natural gas, has a relatively low thermodynamic efficiency, which means that 200 kWh (thermal) worth of coal or natural gas many only produces around 80 kWh of electricity. Therefore, if you simply buy enough solar panels to become a net exporter of roughly 80 kWh of electricity onto the grid per day, this will cause a reduction in coal and/or natural gas consumption elsewhere in the grid, by around 200 kWh (thermal) equivalent, which will null out your effective personal CO2 emissions. Therefore, you do not actually need to buy 50 kW worth of solar panels, as somewhat less (maybe 35 kW in a reasonably sunny location) is potentially adequate, if installed in a grid tied setup. At today's prices, 35 kW worth of solar panels (by themselves, without installation, racking hardware, or inverters) can be purchased for around $21,000 USD (mid 2022 prices). When the solar panels, plus the inverters, racking hardware, and ancillary hardware are included, but excluding the non-CO2 emitting "soft costs" associated with installation (labor + profit + government overhead/permitting/inspections + insurance overhead, etc.), a grid tied system of 35 kW rating can be built for roughly $35,000. If a person does not want to personally install 35 kW worth of grid tied solar equipment, they one could instead simply buy the equipment, and then just give it away for free to anyone that wants it. If you give away free solar panels and inverters, then in all likelihood, the person accepting the "free" equipment will eventually install that equipment into a system which will in fact reduce grid electricity consumption, which will reduce required coal and natural gas consumption somewhere in the economy, by a value approximately equal to 200 kW (thermal), which will effectively null out all of your personal CO2 emissions associated with your existence. You do not need to ride a bicycle to do this. You can do this, even if you still wish to drive an electric vehicle, or even a relatively fuel efficient gasoline vehicle. If you still drive a gasoline vehicle, you will emit CO2 locally, but your gifted 35 kW worth of solar panels will still offset the production of CO2 elsewhere in an amount quite a bit larger than what your vehicle will normally emit (unless you drive a large amount of annual miles, and/or use a gas guzzling vehicle, in which case more gifted solar panels than 35 kW would be required). Minimalist living is not required. Demanding that governments and corporations do something to make changes to reduce CO2 emissions is not required. Individuals can in fact make a difference, by effectively nulling out their own CO2 emissions, simply by purchasing ~35 kW worth of solar panels (+ inverters + racking hardware) and then doing something to cause them to eventually get deployed. The amount of solar panels required however does depend somewhat upon where they will ultimately be installed. Residents of high latitude and/or cloudy regions (ex: Canada and Europe) would need to buy somewhat larger quantity of solar panels (probably closer to 70 kW), due to the lower performance of the solar panels when installed in relatively poor sun access locations, such as the UK or Germany.

They lie with outdated engine tech with emission norms that are now illegal. Fuel efficiency that is 10 year old. Stuck with fuel that is outdated (probably cant use Ethanol etc. Also they are much unsafe without so much of recent improvement in safety aspects.

My van is 20 years old but faily low kilometres for it's age. And it's a Toyota (reliable).

I totally get driving an old car because it still works, and it is far cheaper than buying a new one... The first R of the three comes to mind, but for pollution, that argument does not hold. An EV needs to overcome the energy embedded in it's manufacturing when compared to an ICE vehicle in order to reach a "break-even point", after which it is truly very close to zero emissions. The typical "pay-back" period for this is about two years (averaging a lot of things... ) Translation: every two years of usage of a ICE car is the same as the impact on the client of getting a new EV. so if you use an old gas car for more than two years, it's worse for the climate than buying a new EV. Driving a car for 10 years, an ICE vehicle will be pollute about the same as 5 EV's. Also this two year payback is based on the power mix in place where the batteries and cars are manufactured. As the grid cleans up, the embedded carbon from manufacturing goes down, speeding up the payback further.

@@petersilva037 Not to mention the where the first comment left it. The car ICE car being 5, 10, 15, 20 years old has the emission of rules from 5-20 years ago, which is worse than a modern ICE. So its progressively worse (not just in a linear fashion of 10 year old car is worst than 5 EV combined.. it is probably more than 5... the older the car gets the further it falls behind emission standards). The original comment simply missed the fact that the ICE's main polluting part is the fuel consumption and not it's production. [well, if we ignore the VW scandal where the 'modern' car was as bad as the old ones... but on paper... :)]

In addition to the more lax regulations for efficiency of older vehicles, the efficiency drops as piston rings, valves, and seals wear down, making the already lax efficiency even worse.

The Lougheed's fine if you steer clear of power boat trailers. If one nudges you shout "Avast there ye swabs". Works for me.

Drive Green is the largest EV dealership in the UK - just south of Bath and Bristol. Huge choice. They deliver.

yes, supply is still limited. that sadly keeps the prices up. will take quite some time that car manufacturers scale up enough. those who scale up now will make insane profits, those who wait until 2026 will go bankrupt.

No one cares

Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iruoa9x60bG6oIk.html

Thank you too!

Prices will come down eventually as production rises and technology advances.

: That would be a nice change. The behaviour between groups is symbolic for the general level of disrespect that we seem to have towards other people. Car drivers hate other car drivers, too. If you try to find cohesion and respect in a modern western world you'll have to search for a long time. And that includes every age group as far as I can tell.

The modern turbo fan jet engine is more efficient than an ice but still produces tonnes of CO2.The development of structural batteries or hydrogen/compressed air turbines could lead to zero carbon planes.

Planes are actually quite efficient per passenger per distance. Fully loaded some may be more efficient than a car with one person in it. Problem is they usually go very long distances...

@@jfolz good point ,A very difficult problem to solve if we want net zero.

@@bernardcharlesworth9860 Avation is one of those hard to abate sectors that would be perfect for E-Fuels. Everything else can be either nucleriszed or electrified. It's really on governments to start properly using modern monetary policy to properly shape behaviour, a whacking great carbon tax would be a good start.

Even though electric vehicles can be somewhat heavier than equivalent gas powered cars, virtually all damage to roads is caused by trucks that create so much pressure on the asphalt skin that they actually create a wave In the roadway which is really destructive.

This might be because of the speed difference. You might imply that frontal area is the only factor that causes drag, but length and skin drag are super relevant too. This report might be based on the average rail line distance travelled, of which many are carried out by 160, 200, to 300 or some even 350 kmh trains. Drag increases by the square of the speed. It makes sense that the numbers are not much lower. If we were comparing to a 120kmh train, i bet it would be a quarter or less. Also it seems like the train not always being full was taken into consideration. Same with the bus, or it would be waaaay lower.

oh neever mind, chancese are the cars are actually implied to be full If not motorcycle numbers often would be lower. Chances are not real life numbers were used.

A Tesla model 3 weight is 1 725 - 1 819 kg and the BMW series 3 is between 1,565kg - 1,965kg.

Current EV vehicles are just the first commercial generation. We'll get rid of the heavy and flammable lithium batteries pretty soon. Battery and capacitor science and technology already has much better options in labs and prototypes. The same goes for fuel cells and those can be used in electricity hubs in more rural areas for EV vehicles too. There are already some pretty good fuel cells for things like ethanol and butane so we don't even need to work with far more difficult hydrogen or methane.

Cheers JP. You're very welcome

Yeah but he never talks nuclear or carbon-neutral liquid fuels, which have an existing infrastructure.

unfortunatly if you're trying to replace at least 50% of the worlds passenger vehicles with EV's you'll have to resort to mining new materials. There's simply net enough material to recycle to achieve this sentiment.

@@The-Cat not yet, but in a few decades it will become a closed loop, which is the long term situation you're working towards. If we need to emit some CO2 today (and still less than by driving ICE cars) to emit nothing in the future, that's a reasonable tradeoff.

@@Ehralur "few decades" we're talking about billions of batteries not just for cars and you're saying 90% recyclable. By that logic you should already know that that's not a "closed loop" A closed loop of recyling is impossible. It's just basic physics. There will always be a loss of material and there will always be a need for new material. We're producing products out of finite resources remember ?

@@The-Cat that's nonsense. We can already recycle up to 98% and there's a clear path to 100%. There's nothing in physics that prescribes that you can't reuse a refined ore 100%. Ores are not depleting during use. If anything, it's better because the refining of an already refined product will leave you with a purer material. Yes, there will be a need for new mining for the foreseeable future and maybe ever, but a closed loop is entirely possible and even economically viable.

I have lots of cheap plastic for sale. I just need to buy 2 ships and a net.

And it makes the brakes last longer.. It's a rare thing when something works so well.

Regeneration adds more parts, weight, upfront cost, and possible maintenance costs. However greater range, probable less power use, and reduced wear and tear on brakes make it worthwhile for most.

@@mikedavison3400 Are you sure regen adds that much? Isn't the majority of the hardware already there? I love one-pedal driving. By timing the point at which I lift off the throttle, I can drive around town and hardly ever use the brakes. It's great.

@@mikedavison3400 Which extra parts are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, the BMS takes the output PWM to zero, then allows the return DC from the motor to filter back through the diodes, and into the cells, roughly 70-100A at 60-70mph. The resistive load from the battery is then usually tiered into soft, medium, heavy options.

I have a Prius Plug-in. I love the fact that the much larger battery (that, unfortunately, takes up most of the trunk) than what's in the standard Prius means that regen is great in hilly territory. Gravity is a thing.

This guy refuses to talk nuclear and carbon-neutral liquid fuels frim solar or nuclear.

@@scottslotterbeck3796 have you seen the huge amount of resources needed and time frames for nuclear waste storage ??? Ban that shit right now.

I’m keeping my camper van - missing the point, along with billions of other ignorant people.

@@H4N5O1O Presumably you think I should scrap a perfectly working vehicle and replace it with…? What? A Tesla? Some other EV?

One needs to look past one's own needs. Sharing will have a place but not as much as people may think. Just how do you build a MODERN city not dominated by car design. Again I can't take sheetrock or a new mattress home on mass transit. Not saying it is impossible but it would need a lot of work to get there from here. And it may not.

Agreed

Perhaps we can see other options. Rent or share a truck when needed. If you need to haul building supplies every day, then an electric truck might be justified (which could be shared, again another option). It is not an 'either/or' choice.

Absolutely. The negative impact of cars goes way beyond what fuel they use. If anyone doubts this, just walk round your neighborhood - cars parked everywhere. And every one of those cars needs roads to travel on and at least one other parking place. Environmental damage is more than just pollution and global warming.

Cant wait to share my car with someone who likes to f*ck in them, the smell and sticky seats will be lovely..

Capitalist Free Enterprise Cutthroat Competition And Price Crushing doesn't appear to be quite working as advertised by the billionaires.

Well, your cost to run the EV however will be much lower. Also, the EV has hundreds of less parts to go wrong....needs much less maintenance.

@@Floorguy1000 True, but if the interest on the £30,000 loan I'd have to take out (not to mention the repayments) will cost me more than the maintenance on my 13 year old ICE car, it doesn't leave me with many options 🤷‍♂

@@grindupBaker it's only reverting back to the old monarchy system... just instead of Lords Dukes Barons Earls etc we have Billionaires, Millionaires and reaching middle class of smallish business owners. The rest of us are just the common peasants of old just with better living conditions, and we get to chose which Billionaire we help make richer by our blood sweat and toil.

There are some Teslas with over 400,000 miles on them and many with over 100,000 miles. They all have the original HV battery.

I agree that in future using electric vehicles to rebalance the grid is a really good idea. In the city that I live in electricity is $.25 per kilowatt hour but at least two utility providers give three free hours at night because they literally have no place to put the power and are happy for someone to take it away for nothing. If you look up the $90 million Hornesdale battery in Australia you’ll see that it creates a profit of around $45 million per year which is a heck of a good investment. Utility scale batteries help the grit out in a number of ways not the least of which is preventing dangerous power spikes or power dips that can damage equipment. Reading report of the Hornsdale battery there was times when they were getting power off the grid and getting paid to take it away at a dollar per kilowatt hour. And now the policy in Australia has changed completely so that batteries are becoming a much more normal Part of every grid.

Batteries did not make sense for the grid just a decade ago, but a lot has happened and more is at the pipeline. Look up Ambri, flow batteries and iron air batteries. There is even a promising energy storage using compressed CO2. That makes sense as CO2 is a lot easier to liquefy than air. Sand and rock batteries storing energy as 800 K heat is also a thing. The question is _which_ technology will become dominant for MWh grid batteries, not _if_ they will become important :-D

@@colingenge9999 Exactly. All these people who keep telling us ‘the grid will melt if we are all driving EVs’....have no idea how the grid actually works. In the UK the National Grid have a ‘Six myths busted about EVs’....they’re the people who run the UK grid and they say a switch over to EVs will not be a problem. Most EV charging is done at night when there’s nowhere for the power to go..as you say. In the UK Octopus energy offer £0.05/kWh between midnight and 6 am. It’s a no brainer to have an EV but people still keep filling their tanks at £100 a fill....fools burning money.

@@madshorn5826 for decades pumped Hydro has been used to store electrical energy. Excess power from California is sent all the way up to British Columbia where it pumps water back into the dam reservoirs which is then released in peak demand situations and the power sent all the way back to California. Clearly some losses along the way but the dams are there already and that time as you suggested large scale batteries weren’t much of a thing. I’d rather like compressed air storage where they’ve developed some sophisticated but efficient equipment to do the job. I believe there’s a large scale experiment in Ontario going on which shows a lot of promise. I wasn’t aware that they were using carbon dioxide but why not? I do know from my experience in fire suppression that liquid carbon dioxide requires a refrigeration system to keep it liquid. I I’ve seen gravity towers above ground but I think that using all mine shafts would be a much better idea from a safety standpoint. I like all the new developments in batteries. I also like the high temperature underground storage that’s being pioneered in Finland which is capable of storing power over the entire winter. Clearly there are a lot of applications and profits to be made when you look at the first Tesla battery in Australia that cost 90 million but pays back $45 million per year; there’s clearly an opportunity there. Storage is required short term from second to second and longer-term hour to hour, day-to-day, week to week and month to month. Each one of those applications will have its favorite energy storage medium with geographic availability of materials and sites being a consideration as well.

@@Swindonboy56 Agreed. Just say nothing of the joy I still experience in driving my electric vehicle after four years. It’s still exciting which amazes me. I also appreciate the quiet and freedom from vibration which is something that annoys me neurologically. thanks for your response. It’s so nice to read from people who are talking sense and not spewing fossil fuel company propaganda. It’s amazing how often I’ve heard the same half dozen arguments over and over such as it cost more fossil fuels to build a windmill than you would ever get out of it over its lifetime which of course is a total financial impossibility but yet it’s amazing how many people believe this notion that on the face of it makes absolutely no sense. It’s like they haven’t spent more than five minutes thinking about it or reading more than one article and getting all up in arms about how we’re being screwed over by the renewable energy industry. Much the same as politics I guess.

OK, but so what? 1.5°C isn't a "Danger! Do not enter" door we go through or not, it's a target to aim for, and as we're seeing from current environmental damage it's not "safe" below it anyway. Everything we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions makes the future a little less awful, and some things aren't little. If warming is even greater than the models predict, then we have to work even harder to reduce emissions, which is in a sane world would mean the carbon tax would be even higher.

System changes only come when people demand it. That demand comes from masses /majority of people buying EVs, eating vegan, asking what the emissions are of all suppliers. Each individual causes systematic change to happen

@@cclambie indeed. Wynes and Nicholas 2017 rank the most effective actions for individuals in developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as eat a plant-based diet, buy green energy and use it for transportation (i.e. EV) and heating, avoid flying, live car free, and have fewer children.

Never give up.

Maybe they "seem" moot, but they aren't. We can and will decarbonize.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Not so for a number of reasons. Primarily of course that these efforts are not moot, and they do make a large difference over time. This is a very long run, we haven't passed the halfway mark. Also the battery tech was not ready yet in the 1970s, we are hardly there in the 2020s. Transport will gradually take a smaller proportion of emissions.

@@jonnyaxelsson9940 Even way before the 70s, if public transit wasn't killed so every person has to buy a car for oil company wallets, we probably could have only half the problem today.

we see that current warming is already bad, and our actions determine the rate of future warming. It's never too late to make the future less worse. Every little bit helps, and has this video explains switching to an EV (or better yet not driving) is not so little.

@@geon2k2 Thanks you've made a good point, and I agree that ultimately BEV will be the way to go. For me the HEV advantages (speed and convenience of filling up at gas stations, and lower acquisition cost) were important. I felt the report undersold the advantages of HEV and PHEV as an interim steps until BEVs get more practical as highway cars, and charging infrastructure improves.

I suppose they miss the most simplest mid term solution - switch from gasoline to LNG which is much much more eco friendly.

@@dimav.4713 Yes, that's one option. There are plenty of other ways to reduce emissions without forcing people to buy new cars. Making car-sharing compulsory a few times per month (fining drivers who drive alone, maybe., maximum mileage per week. No short journeys, etc. Other alternative fuels. Cutting down on flights. One big point is making air-conditioning illegal. We never died from it before. Apparetly 10-15% of all energy goes to this. That's a big instant saving for the planet. I never use air-con, even when it gets to the high 30s Centigrade and above.

Good points to analyse, but if you take away the dependency of using coal and switch to renewables as an electricity source (which is necessary and inevetible) & once you have an infrastructure of recycling and chargers in place & consider battery and EV tech are rapidly and will rapidly improve in terms of environmental impact (which will reduce cost and weight of the car); EV's will always have a dramatic positive impact on the reduction of carbon footprint compared to ICE cars in the future.

They are a bit heavier by not 20%. I bought a 2014 Ford Focus Electric, which allows for a direct comparison to an ICE vehicle. The Electric is around 3600 lbs while an equivalent styled ICE is around 3400 lbs. This means an electric is around 6% heavier. Yes, heavier but probably not 20%.

@@davidhanson8728 i just had a look, and they appear to be between 200 and 800lbs lighter than the electric versions. It will make a difference. It would be good to see a comparison of equivalent ICEs and EVs to get a more general picture. The good thing is that you can more or less calculate the environmental impact fairly accurately.

Tesla

@@Barskor1 ?

Being "green" isn't a state, it's a comparison with alternatives. If you're going to drive, then get an EV because it's greenER.

@@skierpage yes, my point exactly.

@@guitarbackingtracks4386 Tesla is doing the best at being greener from sourcing raw materials shipping manufacturing recycling to how the EV drives their constant innovation pace is amazing for this.

But what are the sources¿

Thanks, I think you're referring to the IPCC 2014 analysis? One difference in the videos pie chart is it's not considering energy production as a separate slice; presumably it assigns the emissions to the economic sectors making use of that energy.

So why not use numbers of someone who is not biased (and yes, even I take ICCTs statistics with a ... salt mine)? Volvo (as a company who makes ICEs and EVs) released it's own numbers and while it certainly shows that EVs are generally beneficial, it was nowhere near >60%. US statistics for example show, that EVs are beneficial in California, but detrimental in some states with dirty grid. From statistics I've seen EVs are overall cleaner, but ICCT numbers are an extreme outlier.

@@petrkubena One of the big problems with the ICCT report is that by not taking into account emissions from building factories and recycling plants and moving the vehicles to point of distribution, they are ignoring some of the biggest sources of Carbon pollutants in the value chain. The power grid in Texas, for example, is far dirtier than in other states, and it is also far less stable. Factories built where the power grids are dirty can increase CO2 production by orders of magnitude because the additional electric capacity isn't being supplied by Renewables, but by new fossil fuel facilities. The ICCT report is a total outlier from all the other analysis being done in both academic and industry studies. They are a trade association, not an Environmental Advocacy Group. The information they offer on Plug-In Hybrids is not backed by real-world data, such as the ICCT suggests. Their analysis does not reflect the difficulties in establishing mileage comparisons in all driving conditions. For example, an EV driving with the A/C in Southern California traffic will NOT achieve maximum range, regenerative breaking or not. Similarly, EVs that operate in extremely cold environments not only lose battery reliability and efficiency to cold, they also lose range due to the use of interior heating and adaptations for poor driving. There are holes big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through in the ICCT report. It has established a false set of ceteris paribus assumptions that come nowhere near reflecting real-time driving or use case conditions. The problems related to the exclusion of emissions from building factories and recycling plants for batteries adds a layer of deception so enormous it would take pages to address. The ICCT report is total nonsense.

So you ride a bicycle?

Wait so they are bias, you know they are bias and that makes people who say it is...wrong? Kind of backwards there champ.

@@jpcolindesign517 you mentioned the emissions created by building factories but are you feeling to acknowledge that gas powered vehicles need to be built in a factory as well? Even the General Motors bolt factory has 40% of its power supplied by its own solar panel Netwerk. Tesla with its efforts in solar and energy storage has reduced its overall emissions such that it is emission negative taking all of its factories into account, the extraction of all the materials and the power needed to operate the vehicles. We have known for 50 years that burning fossil fuels was unsustainable and the argument was that there was no economic solution but now there is.

I feel like he has made a video on this before

@@MrMineHeads. Yeah, pretty sure he did.

So, please reference it.

I've got to admit, I was wondering where you got a gas powered wheel chair for a minute 😁 but yeah that is a problem. I'm hopeful though, all the development for delivery vans for amazon and shipping companies might lead to economies of scale for producing cheap electric vans for everyone.

Can you charge your chair from the van yet ?

@@danharold3087 I can charge my chair from the van using a high-capacity inverter installed for that purpose. It's not been needed yet as I haven't taken long trips. But eventually I will need the inverter to power additional medical equipment along with my powerchair

@@MinkePDX when are people going to see that long trips should not be done ever.

@@H4N5O1O I think I see where you’re coming from. But it also sounds very very out of touch. Consider that the device you are using to read this only exists due to globalized shipping and trade. Also, it’s impossible for 100% of the population to live in an urban environment with walkable access to everything they need. Food doesn’t come from a grocery store. It comes from farms. Presently it’s only the smallest percentage of the world’s population that is affluent and privileged enough to have everything brought to them rather than the other way around. And the former are merely outsourcing their long trips to the less affluent. Please describe a means of creating a world where this kind of inequality doesn’t exist. I’d really like to know.

I walk or run everywhere I go. Once you learn to quit driving, you learn to save money. Cars enable you to spend money.

you're forgetting the up front cost of an EV. currently they're way too expensive for many people. you can buy a decent used gas car to get you to work for 2-3k.. how much is the cheapest reliable used electric car? how about if you need a work truck or contractors van? in the coming decades EVs will be more widely adopted but right now they're still financially out of reach for many.

a no-brainer when you live in a privileged normal country, where I live people would have to work around around 50 years for a EV but they have to eat so saving money for a EV actually takes from 300 to 500 years.... and when that thing brakes there's no way a normal joe will fix it, you have to go to a dealership and pay with your kidney, meanwhile old petrol cars are easy to fix in your shed

I don't think we want to switch quickly. Would be foolish to go all BEV today only to have hydrogen work out say in 10 years. Going at a reasonable pace also lets the grid and charging networks follow demand. If either of these get behind it will lower the demand for BEVs. Mining is also something we don't want to rush. Say in 5 years we don't need some mineral. Mining is the hardest. Political resistance red tape make the lead time to open a mine very long. The US president just canceled 2 mining permits that were issued under the last administration. Going slow also lets the existing oil companies adjust to the new market.

@@danharold3087 Does the cancelling of the 2 mining permits mean very much? What's to stop the next administration re-issuing them?

You raise a very serious issue. The government can legally decide that petrol or diesel fuelled ICE vehicles should cease production on any date they choose. What they cannot do is say they will be replaced by electric vehicles, because that choice is dependent on China. China controls around 80% of production of the rare earth elements that are required if you want to make an electric vehicle, a situation that isn't going to change significantly in the next 15 years. Neodinium, dypsoprisium etc. It's not planning laws that are preventing mines from being opened, it's the simple fact that the most economic methods of production of REEs is when they are a byproduct of a massive mine that produces some much less exotic element. China already has such massive mines - the USA don't, and there appears to be no way of changing that economically. And China are streets ahead in Africa in forming partnerships with governments who sit on vast reserves of any element they can't mine economically in China. It's not possible to manufacture an engine for Jet aircraft without Rhenium, because it will melt. Rhenium is essential because, along with other metals it forms an alloy that doesn't. It's worth mentioning that it isn't possible to recycle this Rhenium. Nobody has been able to come close to showing that it will possible to produce enough of the quantites required to manufacture all the EV''s that will be needed.. Recently, manufacturers discovered it was impossible to secure contacts for cobalt over a five-year period..

Don't worry, they'll just take your car away from you. You know, 'climate emergency'

theres a central american country with a huge salt lake with enough lithium below but no infrastructure to exploit it, and there shouldnt be , maybe if we ban all the pointless shit jobs and sports,arts, etc etc people do, and design better, share information freely we can all work local doing only what society needs done and all live healthier more fulfilled lives.

And Putin's war