3 ms·
The paper didn’t dispute anything. It made the point that emissions from battery production depend on the local mix of energy sources. At the time of publicatio
by jasonlaramburu 6y ago
The paper didn’t dispute anything. It made the point that emissions from battery production depend on the local mix of energy sources. At the time of publication, Germany got 1/3 of its energy mix from coal, hence batteries produced there have a higher emissions profile.
What am I ‘doing’ exactly, pointing out a fact that there is no ‘free lunch’ when reducing emissions?
- sorenbs 6y agoThe narrative that diesel cars are better for the environment, which is pushed by the scientists who found the 11-15 tonnes was disputed by your article. From the first section: “The Belgian newspaper De Standaard published this claim on their website on the 18th of April. We rate this claim as mostly false.” Again, even if the cost of b battery production in Germany two years ago was 15 tones, it doesn’t matter. Why? Because Germany made almost no car batteries two years ago, and the grid is rapidly decarbonising - in Germany and most of the world. Now, if you are arguing that it would be better if people lived closer to where they work, and stopped driving cars altogether - I’d agree with that. But cars will continue to be with us for a long time, and the Sonne we can transition the fleet to electric the better.