Elon Cucks BTFO

electrek.co/2019/04/22/study-electric-cars-dirtier-diesel-debunked/
According to this, they straight up forgot to include the CO2 cost of producing the diesel fuel, but it doesn't matter anyway because not using EVs because some of the current plants are shit is a retarded idea to begin with.

Attached: 1529879930786.jpg (645x773, 120K)

>german study
phys.org/news/2019-03-sue-vw-emissions-scandal.html

It's easy to figure out why retard. Electricity is produced overwhelmingly by fossil fuels, especially coal which makes gas look clean in comparison. This is a recurring pattern in politics: move the problem out of sight and pretend it doesn't exist anymore.

>It's easy to figure out why retard.
Only if you ignore a bunch of factors.

>Electricity is produced overwhelmingly by fossil fuels, especially coal which makes gas look clean in comparison.
Yes, but large thermal power stations have vastly better efficiencies than small internal combustion engines. So it's completely plausible that coal-powered electric vehicles would emit roughly similarly to conventional vehicles.

>This is a recurring pattern in politics: move the problem out of sight and pretend it doesn't exist anymore.
And splitting a problem up into parts and solving them individually is a recurring pattern in engineering.

I wish there was more nuclear reactors.

It's not a scientific peer-review study and it's very controversial because it uses data from a Swedish study from 2017 that has been refuted.

focus.de/auto/elektroauto/studie-zu-klima-folgen-ifo-institut-rechnet-e-autos-schlecht-und-macht-dabei-viele-fehler_id_10611851.html

Attached: t3_50wc8v.jpg (4762x2128, 860K)

Also it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal but it's a paper published by an economic-focused think-tank. So fuck off.

so the fucking problem is not the electric vehicle production but how electricity is generated to charge the vehicle?

fuck off you stupid cuck no SHIT that's a problem, that's nothing to do with electric vehicles. ELON IS EVEN TRYING TO CHANGE THAT LOL

>living in a place that runs on fucking carbon
fucking poorfags
glorious hydroelectric master race

>not living where 100% of your electricity is generated by geothermal
get fucked

>Not just using perpetual motion engines.
SMALL TIME FAGGOT

This watergate meme has gone too far.

>German study
Inb4 study funded by Germany's car industry.

Because people seem to be unaware: taking the CO2 cost of battery production into account (and they might need to be replaced at some point as well), an electric car is pretty much even with a combustion engine car AFTER the latter's typical lifetime CO2 emissions. Add then the CO2 emissions for producing the actual electricity and you're there.

However, since it's a German study, it focuses on reasonably sized cars with efficient engines, not silly US traffic monsters so all bets are off there.

Heh I got some good money out of that

What is a T.E.F.?

Who cares lol, the main argument for EV's should be the inhuman instant torque delivery anyway

Austria?

>emits

No, they emit nothing. If you want to bring up all the bs during production with lithium etc then sure

>this article and study was funded by...

Germs are leader in explosive engine, not in electric engines.

This is the only right solution
>more nuclear reactor with better security
>unless your in a seismic area like japan you have pretty much nothing to worry about
but muuuuh nuclear waste
>create facilities to store them for some years and they won't pollute anything anymore
>once sending stuff to space is cheap enough, send them to the sun to recycle them naturally.
>either lower cost of rockets, which we are currently doing and succeeding to do
>create some giant canon able to send out of space our waste in direction to the sun, which might one day be possible with more advanced technology.

>Study shows [thing]
>It's a controversial study that has several peer reviewed studies stating the opposite

I'd buy a PHEV if they didn't cost +10K€ compared to an equivalent gasoline-driven car.

Attached: forinstance.png (90x144, 14K)

well said

This.

The CO2 emissions of EVs depend on the power generation mix that you use to charge the car. As we move away from coal power into renewables all EVs will get "cleaner" as a result, something ICE cars can't do.

>It calculated the CO2 emissions from plug-in electrics
>depending on the energy sources used to generate electricity
>in various countries,
>and then translated that into miles per gallon.

Read the fine prints.

Of course. All of the excess CO2 came from the farts of s.o.y.-rich diet of Tesla owners.

>send them to the sun to recycle them naturally
The Earth is orbiting the Sun with a speed of about 30 km/s or 100,000 km/h. If you want to send stuff into the Sun then you have to decelerate it substantially, otherwise it just stays in orbit. It's not economically viable and putting radioactive shit on a rocket that may explode in the air is too dangerous.
>either lower cost of rockets, which we are currently doing and succeeding to do
Cost reduction is achieved mostly through re-usability. You can't re-use a rocket if you fire it into the Sun.
>create some giant canon able to send out of space our waste in direction to the sun
The problem with space cannons is that the projectile has the highest speed when it hits the atmosphere. It would have to go through tens of miles of air in a single second. This would obviously necessitate huge amounts of shielding and it would carry the risk of spraying radioactive confetti everywhere if something goes wrong.

>taking the CO2 cost of battery production into account, an electric car is pretty much even with a combustion engine car AFTER the latter's typical lifetime CO2 emissions
It's easy to make an argument if you can just make shit up.

Electric cars are for avoid smoke contamination in cities no for muh ecology

They get paid to get gassed now

What's bad about testing fumes on g*rmaniggers and monkeys?

>implying your vroom vroom motor is more efficient than a power station
Come the fuck on, retard.

Found the hue

>Electricity is produced overwhelmingly by fossil fuels,
Not here in France, you stupid clapistanese ape. Breath in some more fumes before you get shot.

I don't give a fuck about big climate business hysteria, they are cool no matter how much CO2 they produce.

Attached: shames.jpg (1024x689, 112K)

"The problem is that the IFO’s study makes many of the same mistakes as other studies used electric vehicle detractors in the past.
For example, they assume that electric car batteries become “hazardous waste” after 150,000 km or ten years, which simply isn’t the case. 150,000km is shorter than the warranty period for an EV battery (generally 100,000 miles or more in the US, which is 160,000km).
Virtually all automakers working on electric vehicles are also working on recycling the batteries since they are going to still be extremely valuable after being depleted. And lithium ion batteries do not have a hazardous waste designation in the US – however, the lead acid batteries in every diesel vehicle do.
They are also making many other mistakes, like using the flawed NEDC driving cycle, which is being phased out. They assume unrealistically optimistic numbers for diesel emissions, and unrealistically pessimistic numbers for electricity emissions.
One of the biggest mistakes they are making is that they are comparing the full production and lifecycle of an electric vehicle, including the emission from the electricity uses, against the production and lifecycle of a diesel car without accounting for all the energy used to produce the diesel and supply it to the cars."

huns literally can't stop gassing kek

>being a gridcuck
>being master of fucking anything
Pick one and only one.

Attached: offgridsolar.jpg (840x424, 80K)

this is a cope, the same argument is against biofuels and hydrogen and it is bullshit. basically no oil engine no money for texans and saudis

Habits die hard

It's like the lithium battery mining thing, no one cares, they just want to "Feel" better.

Everybody in this thread is retarded.

Efficiency of power plants :iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/
up to 33%

Diesel engine efficiency up to 50%.

Everybody who shills for electric cars is huge fucking faggot and retard too. Go suck Elons dick some more you retards.

eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html
Wikipedia passenger diesel cars go up to abour 44% peak / 37% average while the 33% average for coal plants seems correct. So you're stroking your shaft over a mere 4% difference instead of bringing up some actual facts like that burning coal produces more CO2/kWh because of its different chemical composition. That doesn't mean you're right though, because you're entirely missing the big picture.

This

Good goy electric cars are bad

>study
>not peer reviewed
Kek

Meanwhile, back in reality, people who own these cars aren't poorfags like you and can afford their own renewable power sources (often solar, as most Tesla owners are glorious Califags). My solar setup will last decades and provides me with loads of green energy to fuel both my house and my car. Stay jelly, ICE faggots.

this was a pretty controversial study in Germany, it's heavily biased

kek
who here loves the smell of gasoline?

>diesel
>gasoline

Attached: 1525867286456.gif (320x240, 1.77M)

kek, i was surprise that no one on Jow Forums made the connection

i was not implying anything, mr. chin

zi germans went full retard

>Efficiency of power plants up to 33%
New tech can hit electrical generation of 45% and can hit total system thermal efficiency of 98%.

33% as a max limit is low.

>German car study
Literally meaningless, this is like if you had a study run by coca cola about which soft drink tastes the best.

based spermany.

>study supports you
haHA take THAT drumpfkins!!

>study disagrees with you
[loud lefty coping noises]

Gasoline is okay. Diesel smells like shit, though.

>caliniggers
>glorious
is that why you keep fleeing your own state en masse, like a cancer throwing off metastatic tumours

Thanks to German coal power plants.

It actually is, dumb shit. A motor vehicle doesn't have to deal with energy loss from the infrastructure, conversion and distribution (a problem electric energy has).

Link to study?

>can hit total system thermal efficiency of 98%.

BULL SHIT

Due to the laws of thermodynamics you cannot get above 73% thermal efficiency with any engine that converts heat to motion.

>coal which makes gas look clean in comparison.

A big coal plant is way more efficient than a tiny gasoline or diesel engine.

Thanks for that link, very informative unlike OP's screencap.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about how much of the discharged heat can be used for district heating etc.

>Diesel engine efficiency

When I look at a minimal manual trans engine and compare it with a modern auto computerized vehicle with all the bells and whistles the former seems more eco friendly whereas the latter seems like toxic disposable junk.

I'm thinking of getting a diesel jeep for my next vehicle and will go back to a manual transmission which I haven't had in almost 2 decades.

Am I completely wrong?

Attached: 1552179450795.jpg (2048x1538, 344K)

So send a rocket with a detachable payload. Once your in a safe orbit detach the load and have it accelerate itself into the sun's orbit. Land the rest of the rocket and keep doing it.

Yep it's simply not valid. For example in Norway electricity is produced almost entirely from renewable sources without any emissions. France is almost entirely nuclear powered, so also very little emissions from the few non-nuclear plants. The list goes on and it's only a matter of time before fossil fuels are no longer worth it for electricity production.

WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT CO2

WE ARE LITERALLY DROWNING IN OCEANS OF PLASTIC FROM CHINA AND INDIA

OUR AIR IS FULL OF HEAVY METALS AND PARTICULATE MATTERS

WE ARE DROWNING IN NIGGERS AND ASIANS AND NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT

Who gives a fuck about government funded academics trying to justify their jobs when the planet was warmer millions of years ago. How about this? Don't fucking build your house next to the beach.

Attached: 1470658865770.png (366x401, 69K)

>our air is full of heavy metals
how do they stay in the air if they're heavy

Are you really discussing about sending waste to the fucking Sun? lmao, you guys are even more retarded than I thought.

Oh, the lengths the oil industry will go to in order to keep you using their outdated, planet destroying product

Why. Seems like a good solution if it was economical.

>33%
Nigger which power plant you know of that is using a single cycle power plant without a WHRS? These numbers are for those types of power plants. Almost all thermal plants today (even in shitty 3rd world countries) use combined cycle systems and also have WHR systems that push the efficiency up to 60-70%

You're literally quoting efficiencies for technologies from the 1930s and 1940s.

Source: Am electrical engineer

You're not.
The latter is all about taking the driver out of the equation. The computer decides how it's going to smooth the throttle, shift, and limit acceleration instead of you. The computer doesn't do a bad job, but it doesn't do a great job either. A competent driver wanting to save fuel can best a computer with a little effort and forethought.

Nowadays that's not true anymore unless you're driving some weird-ass routes.
>Source: My penny-pinching dad with several decades of experience on how to drive with maximum efficiency autistically testing shit and caving a few years ago when an automatic bested him

>If you want to send stuff into the Sun then you have to decelerate it substantially, otherwise it just stays in orbit.
Do you have any idea how ballistics work?

If I have a cannon at an altitude of 100km, and I aim it at the ground, whether I launch a projectile at 5m/s or .2c, it's going to slam into the fucking ground. You can launch something from Earth with a trajectory that goes through the center of the sun, you don't need to slow it down for that to be possible.

That's a cute cabin. I'd be happy to have a happy family and lots of white children with my blond-haired, blue or green-eyed white wife in that place.

Attached: 1538372422377.jpg (1080x1350, 124K)

With gas/diesel you have to
1.Dig the stuff up and pump it
2.Refine it
3.Actually deliver it to your town, sometimes from overseas
4.Burn it with some pathetic efficiency
Even simply burning fossil fuels at a plant and then transferring the generated electricity whenever it's need is many times better than burning gas in your car. That's not even counting alternative electricity sources.

If only someone though of using diesel engines in power plants, hmm.

>Because people seem to be unaware: taking the CO2 cost of battery production into account (and they might need to be replaced at some point as well), an electric car is pretty much even with a combustion engine car AFTER the latter's typical lifetime CO2 emissions. Add then the CO2 emissions for producing the actual electricity and you're there.
The study doesn't seem to do... any of that, but your logic is correct for determining if electric vehicles really are less polluting than ICEs.

We'd need to figure out what the usable lifetime of current LiPo batteries is, which we could use to figure out the lifetime total of power storage capacity. Once we have that, figure out how much pollution (CO2 is only part of it but a decent proxy for "overall" pollution I guess) is released per kWh of lifetime storage, and add to that the pollution per kWh of charging (since there are losses after the generating plant, line loss, voltage reduction loss, charging loss). That'll give you the overall pollution per kWh of usable charge for batteries; multiple that by the average kWh per mile of electric vehicles, and you have that actual total CO2 per mile of electric vehicles, more or less.

Seems like it'd be more complicated for ICEs, since you'd have to figure out pollution created in the manufacturing of the engines in addition to pollution per gallon of gas produced (ie pulled out of the ground and refined). After you have those, do the same process of taking average mileage to figure out CO2 per mile for gas vehicles.

I don't even know where you'd start on figuring out the pollution cost of production of batteries or engines. Even figuring out the lifetime total charge capacity of batteries would be really hard. But that's how you'd do it, I think.

Actually Volkswagen put out a study disproving those claims yesterday.

Remind me why aren't methanol fuel cell cars a thing.

Attached: 1525459510422.png (211x275, 123K)

scheiß merkel gehört in die volkswagen gaskammer

The article here addresses all that.

tl;didn't lean German: the article OP refers to is based on very old battery tech which needs a lot more material per storage capacity and it also assumes a much shorter battery lifespan than real world driving has already shown.

It also points out that batteries are easy to recycle, with batteries from recycled material requiring far less energy.

I also want to make the point that electric vehicles could in principle last much longer than IC vehicles.
Electric motors and transmission experience hardly any wear at all.
So if the industry is willing they could make cars that last 30 years or so.
This would easily offset the approx 50% extra CO2 emission required to make then, even if they need a battery replacement every 10 years.
Unfortunately the car industry will probably never do this because they rather sell a brand new car every 15 years than every 30 years.

Volkswagen is also investing heavily in developing electric vehicles of their own.

Converting fossil fuels into electricity and then into mechanical energy will genetally be less efficient than converting fossil fuels into mechanical energy directly. Double dipping conversion losses is bad for efficiency
The point is modularity. By making the source of energy modular, electric vehicles are solving the problem for vehicles. The solution to clean energy is clean electricity + electric cars.
Solving half of that problem isn't "pushing the problem off to someone else"
There is no solution of improving the efficiency and reducing carbon emissions of gas powered vehicles. It's already been optimized.