4 ms·
This article is total nonsense. No data sources provided, claims 78g/Km CO₂ for Norway with 98% renewable energy. Also completely ignores energy use for product
by lazyjones 9y ago
This article is total nonsense. No data sources provided, claims 78g/Km CO₂ for Norway with 98% renewable energy. Also completely ignores energy use for production of fossile fuels and apparently uses the circulating wild guesses for CO₂ emissions during battery production (which Elon Musk has commented on...).
- fulafel 9y agoWithout commenting on the figures of this article, generally EV CO2e footprint is manufacturing-heavy -> total lifecycle per-km footprint is still substantial without any emissions from charging energy.
- lazyjones 9y ago> total lifecycle per-km footprint is still substantial without any emissions from charging energy. The "total lifecycle CO₂-per-Km footprint" is a pointless and deliberately misleading figure when its basis of calculation is (almost completely) independent of the distance driven, but it suggests that driving the vehicle is subject to a high amount of emissions per Km. The opposite is true: EV lifecycle CO₂/Km becomes lower the more you drive. Besides, deliberately including highly speculative CO₂ amounts from vehicle production and refuelling should be done in all cases: how much CO₂ is emitted by ships and satellite launches used in detection of crude oil reserves?
- fulafel 9y agoVehicle wear and retirement is closely related to total distance driven, so when looking at EVs in the aggregate, a per-km perspective works fairly well.
- secult 9y agoI believe that the article is demonstrating some point, and this point is obvious. It's not a scientific article, and even though author does not provide information about data source that doesn't mean that there is no data source.