5 ms·

> Another benefit is a sharp reduction in emissions of CO2... Yeah... no. Half of the German electricity is coal-based, so electric vehicles in Germany are wor

> Another benefit is a sharp reduction in emissions of CO2... Yeah... no. Half of the German electricity is coal-based, so electric vehicles in Germany are worse in terms of CO2 emissions than Diesel-based vehicles: https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/04/27/1842245/electric-vehicles-in-germany-emit-more-co2-than-diesel-ones-study-shows https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/04/27/1842245/electric-ve... Combined with the total stop of nuclear energy and the unsolved problem of storing/distributing renewable energy, it's going to stay that way for a while.

marak830 7y ago
Doesn't Germany import a fair bit from France(who is oversupplied from their nuclear reactors). I may be wrong I heard about that a while ago.
- imtringued 7y ago
  The imports/exports are balanced.
xhgdvjky 7y ago
The nuclear fear is annoying, but this is still a step in the right direction
cmutel 7y ago
The cited study is not peer reviewed, nor does it provide any supplementary data. Simply put, as it is not reproducible, it is not science. The best studies will be completely open about their assumptions, data sources, approximations, and uncertainties. They generally report (and I find similar conclusions in my research) that in most places where people are buying EVs, given the uncertainties in our supply chain models, they are at par with hybrid gasoline or natural gas cars. And it is difficult to construct consistent scenarios where the electricity grid does not get cleaner over the lifetime of an EV built today and used for 15 years. A good starting point when exploring these calculations is the GREET model: https://greet.es.anl.gov/ https://greet.es.anl.gov/.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Simply put, as it is not reproducible, it is not science. The study cites its sources and means of calculation and therefore is falsifiable. If there was anything obviously wrong with it, I'm sure it would've been proven wrong by the many people who don't like the conclusion. > ... in most places where people are buying EVs... That's irrelevant to my point. These "electric highways" are being built in Germany, so the German energy mix counts, not that of other places.
freeflight 7y ago
> Yeah... no. Half of the German electricity is coal-based And a good third comes from renewables without having any meaningful hydropower opportunities [0]. > Combined with the total stop of nuclear energy, and the unsolved problem of storing/distributing renewable energy There are still 7 reactors running [1] just like on-going research into nuclear fusion [2]. Both are far more difficult problems to solve than electricity storage, which has comparatively research potential versus nuclear fission projects which have the actual unsolved problem of where to "finally" store that waste for decades and centuries. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kernreaktoren_in_Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kernreaktoren_in_Deu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X
- gridlockd 7y ago
  You're doing nothing to convince me that my conclusion is incorrect. Yes, Germany still has reactors, which they will turn off, exacerbating the problem. Nuclear waste storage is a solved problem, just not the "indefinitely" part. That part can be put off for a long time. By contrast, if you want to replace coal/nuclear with renewable energy, you need to solve the storage/distribution problem first.
imtringued 7y ago
What makes you think that Germany will stay on coal forever?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  I don't think that. Forever is a long time. However, so far the "Energiewende" has been a total failure in terms of reducing CO2, despite Germany having a huge amount of renewables and extremely high electricity costs. If Germany had any obvious alternatives to coal, they would've long done something about it. As it stands and into the foreseeable future, without technological breakthroughs, the idea that electric vehicles could significantly reduce CO2 emissions doesn't stand scrutiny.
  - grandinj 7y ago
    They do: nuclear power. Already built, costs already paid, minimal extra costs to be incurred due to running it longer.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > They do: nuclear power. Already built, costs already paid, minimal extra costs to be incurred due to running it longer. Nevertheless, Germany has already decided to exit nuclear altogether.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Not forever, but way too long: https://i.redd.it/mbhzuqszr7q21.gif https://i.redd.it/mbhzuqszr7q21.gif
SECProto 7y ago
You linked to an article that links to an article that does not link to the source study (which supposedly claims that electric cars including battery manufacture create more CO2 than a comparable diesel car.) I'll list why this is irrelevant and misleading: - This comment thread is about overhead electric powered trucks. Battery manufacture emissions are irrelevant. - The article claims a lifetime of 10 years and an annual mileage of 15000km. Those are drastically low for a truck in Germany, and that means it's an inaccurate calculation to spread the manufacturing emissions over the driven distance. There were a couple more, but without seeing the source study I can't comment on them.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  You are of course correct in that these vehicles aren't directly comparable. Particularly, these vehicles will still be spending a significant amount of time just being regular Diesels. > The article claims a lifetime of 10 years and an annual mileage of 15000km. Those are drastically low for a truck in Germany, and that means it's an inaccurate calculation to spread the manufacturing emissions over the driven distance. Since there are no battery-associated emissions for these vehicles in the first place, that objection is moot, isn't it? On the other hand, surely building all this infrastructure will result in CO2 emissions. In any event, electricity in Germany is far from CO2 neutral, so the claim of "drastic reduction in CO2" with these vehicles just doesn't fly.
  - SECProto 7y ago
    > In any event, electricity in Germany is far from CO2 neutral, so the claim of "drastic reduction in CO2" with these vehicles just doesn't fly. My earlier comment was a specific criticism of how the linked study doesn't apply to this thread. This claim you've just made, however, is different and broader - and disclaimed in an article here [1], and discussed on HN here [2]. I could get into a demonstrative calculation of how a solely coal-powered electric car is still better than the US-average ICE car in terms of CO2-per-km, but that's been done before [3]. [1] https://innovationorigins.com/no-diesel-is-not-better-for-the-environment-than-electric/ https://innovationorigins.com/no-diesel-is-not-better-for-th... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19795481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19795481 [3] http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2017-18_Abstract_English.pdf http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2017-18_Abstract_Engl...
thg 7y ago
That study was also promptly debunked. https://insideevs.com/features/347409/german-study-diesels-cleaner-electric/ https://insideevs.com/features/347409/german-study-diesels-c...
- gridlockd 7y ago
  I can easily levee the same accusation of cherrypicking the numbers against the sources cited here, like this claim: "even if it were charged 100% from coal, an EV would still be cleaner than the average ICE vehicle" ...where the "average ICE vehicle" is a car running on 30 mpg of gasoline. However, the point of the study isn't to compare average cars in the gasoline-hungry US. The point is to show which new cars would perform the best in terms of achieving the CO2 goals set by the EU for the car industry. This is important, because it has implications on future taxes and subsidies of car purchases. People focus on the "EV vs. Diesel" part, but the actual recommendation of the study is neither EV nor Diesel, but gas-powered vehicles. Now indeed if we pick the slightly different numbers that this EV proponent would like us to pick, we may arrive here: "The Fraunhofer Institute reported in March that EVs typically produce “28 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than a luxury-class diesel, up to 42 percent less than a small car petrol engine.” The catch with these numbers? They only count for the smallest batteries (200km range). The study also has a graph that shows that at 500km, the advantage is down to 5% and at 650km, it flips in favor of the Diesel. Has anything been debunked here? Not really, it just shows that different numbers mean different things.

marak830 7y ago

Doesn't Germany import a fair bit from France(who is oversupplied from their nuclear reactors). I may be wrong I heard about that a while ago.

imtringued 7y ago
The imports/exports are balanced.

xhgdvjky 7y ago

The nuclear fear is annoying, but this is still a step in the right direction

cmutel 7y ago

The cited study is not peer reviewed, nor does it provide any supplementary data. Simply put, as it is not reproducible, it is not science. The best studies will be completely open about their assumptions, data sources, approximations, and uncertainties. They generally report (and I find similar conclusions in my research) that in most places where people are buying EVs, given the uncertainties in our supply chain models, they are at par with hybrid gasoline or natural gas cars. And it is difficult to construct consistent scenarios where the electricity grid does not get cleaner over the lifetime of an EV built today and used for 15 years. A good starting point when exploring these calculations is the GREET model: https://greet.es.anl.gov/ https://greet.es.anl.gov/.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Simply put, as it is not reproducible, it is not science. The study cites its sources and means of calculation and therefore is falsifiable. If there was anything obviously wrong with it, I'm sure it would've been proven wrong by the many people who don't like the conclusion. > ... in most places where people are buying EVs... That's irrelevant to my point. These "electric highways" are being built in Germany, so the German energy mix counts, not that of other places.

freeflight 7y ago

> Yeah... no. Half of the German electricity is coal-based And a good third comes from renewables without having any meaningful hydropower opportunities [0]. > Combined with the total stop of nuclear energy, and the unsolved problem of storing/distributing renewable energy There are still 7 reactors running [1] just like on-going research into nuclear fusion [2]. Both are far more difficult problems to solve than electricity storage, which has comparatively research potential versus nuclear fission projects which have the actual unsolved problem of where to "finally" store that waste for decades and centuries. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kernreaktoren_in_Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kernreaktoren_in_Deu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X

gridlockd 7y ago
You're doing nothing to convince me that my conclusion is incorrect. Yes, Germany still has reactors, which they will turn off, exacerbating the problem. Nuclear waste storage is a solved problem, just not the "indefinitely" part. That part can be put off for a long time. By contrast, if you want to replace coal/nuclear with renewable energy, you need to solve the storage/distribution problem first.

imtringued 7y ago

What makes you think that Germany will stay on coal forever?

gridlockd 7y ago
I don't think that. Forever is a long time. However, so far the "Energiewende" has been a total failure in terms of reducing CO2, despite Germany having a huge amount of renewables and extremely high electricity costs. If Germany had any obvious alternatives to coal, they would've long done something about it. As it stands and into the foreseeable future, without technological breakthroughs, the idea that electric vehicles could significantly reduce CO2 emissions doesn't stand scrutiny.
- grandinj 7y ago
  They do: nuclear power. Already built, costs already paid, minimal extra costs to be incurred due to running it longer.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > They do: nuclear power. Already built, costs already paid, minimal extra costs to be incurred due to running it longer. Nevertheless, Germany has already decided to exit nuclear altogether.
adrianN 7y ago
Not forever, but way too long: https://i.redd.it/mbhzuqszr7q21.gif https://i.redd.it/mbhzuqszr7q21.gif

SECProto 7y ago

You linked to an article that links to an article that does not link to the source study (which supposedly claims that electric cars including battery manufacture create more CO2 than a comparable diesel car.) I'll list why this is irrelevant and misleading: - This comment thread is about overhead electric powered trucks. Battery manufacture emissions are irrelevant. - The article claims a lifetime of 10 years and an annual mileage of 15000km. Those are drastically low for a truck in Germany, and that means it's an inaccurate calculation to spread the manufacturing emissions over the driven distance. There were a couple more, but without seeing the source study I can't comment on them.

gridlockd 7y ago
You are of course correct in that these vehicles aren't directly comparable. Particularly, these vehicles will still be spending a significant amount of time just being regular Diesels. > The article claims a lifetime of 10 years and an annual mileage of 15000km. Those are drastically low for a truck in Germany, and that means it's an inaccurate calculation to spread the manufacturing emissions over the driven distance. Since there are no battery-associated emissions for these vehicles in the first place, that objection is moot, isn't it? On the other hand, surely building all this infrastructure will result in CO2 emissions. In any event, electricity in Germany is far from CO2 neutral, so the claim of "drastic reduction in CO2" with these vehicles just doesn't fly.
- SECProto 7y ago
  > In any event, electricity in Germany is far from CO2 neutral, so the claim of "drastic reduction in CO2" with these vehicles just doesn't fly. My earlier comment was a specific criticism of how the linked study doesn't apply to this thread. This claim you've just made, however, is different and broader - and disclaimed in an article here [1], and discussed on HN here [2]. I could get into a demonstrative calculation of how a solely coal-powered electric car is still better than the US-average ICE car in terms of CO2-per-km, but that's been done before [3]. [1] https://innovationorigins.com/no-diesel-is-not-better-for-the-environment-than-electric/ https://innovationorigins.com/no-diesel-is-not-better-for-th... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19795481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19795481 [3] http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2017-18_Abstract_English.pdf http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2017-18_Abstract_Engl...

thg 7y ago

That study was also promptly debunked. https://insideevs.com/features/347409/german-study-diesels-cleaner-electric/ https://insideevs.com/features/347409/german-study-diesels-c...

gridlockd 7y ago
I can easily levee the same accusation of cherrypicking the numbers against the sources cited here, like this claim: "even if it were charged 100% from coal, an EV would still be cleaner than the average ICE vehicle" ...where the "average ICE vehicle" is a car running on 30 mpg of gasoline. However, the point of the study isn't to compare average cars in the gasoline-hungry US. The point is to show which new cars would perform the best in terms of achieving the CO2 goals set by the EU for the car industry. This is important, because it has implications on future taxes and subsidies of car purchases. People focus on the "EV vs. Diesel" part, but the actual recommendation of the study is neither EV nor Diesel, but gas-powered vehicles. Now indeed if we pick the slightly different numbers that this EV proponent would like us to pick, we may arrive here: "The Fraunhofer Institute reported in March that EVs typically produce “28 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than a luxury-class diesel, up to 42 percent less than a small car petrol engine.” The catch with these numbers? They only count for the smallest batteries (200km range). The study also has a graph that shows that at 500km, the advantage is down to 5% and at 650km, it flips in favor of the Diesel. Has anything been debunked here? Not really, it just shows that different numbers mean different things.