New Study: German Mid-Sized E-Cars Produce Less CO2 Than Diesel Autos – But Only After 585,000 Kilometers!

The German ADAC association, the equivalent of America’s AAA, carried a CO2 comparison for a variety e-autos and combustion engine cars. The results were very surprising, says German magazine Autobild here.

Today electric cars are being pushed as a clean and environmentally friendly alternative, while diesel and gasoline burning engines are being villainized as polluters and climate killers. In their comparison, however, the ADAC came up with some unexpected results. CO2 cars indeed have huge CO2 footprints.

The ADAC reminds that energy does not only get used while driving the vehicle, but also for their manufacture and later for their recycling and supply of fuel.

Manufacture, recycling produce high CO2

According to the ADAC, the manufacture of the electric car’s battery requires a considerable amount of energy, which has a considerable impact on its overall CO2 budget over its lifetime.

The ADAC compared cars from three different segments to find out if electric cars are really more climate friendly: The overall result:

General conclusions are not possible. But: electric cars in Germany today are already in many cases a good environmentally friendly choice. However, they could have a much better CO2 balance if they used exclusively renewable electricity.”

So far Germany’s power grid still relies heavily on fossil fuels.

ADAC looked at diesel, gasoline, natural gas, hybrids, e-cars and others over the range from compact to large sizes cars from a wide variety of manufacturers. It compared the cars after 150,000 km using the German power supply mix of 2013, which had a renewable energy share of 23%. (Today renewable energies have a share of 33%, which would improve the result of the e-cars somewhat).

E-cars just don’t travel that far in their lifetime

The ADAC found that only compact electric cars had the best CO2 budget at 22.5 tonnes of CO2, while gasoline powered cars yielded 30 tonnes. For the next bigger class of cars, called small cars, electric cars still came out ahead, “but only when using the optimistic 150,000 total travel distance.” Less than that, however, they were in fact dirtier.
Note that electric cars traveling 150,000 km are rare, if they exist at all. Renewing the batteries would also mean a further CO2 budget setback.

The ADAC calls the results of their comparison “surprising”.

Autobild reports: “The reality, however, is that small e-cars are often used as a second car or a car for the city. At 50,000 km of driving an e-car cannot compensate the high CO2 emissions for manufacturing, recycling and power provision.”

Upper midsize: e-car worthwhile only after 585,000 km

In other words, with Germany’s current electric power supply mix, even small e-cars still have a greater CO2 budget than diesel powered ones of the same class for longer lifetime distances.

German “Autobild” magazine adds:

Surprising results in the upper mid-class cars: Here diesel produces the best result with 33 tonnes of CO2 over 150,000 km! Because the e-car produces so much CO2 (41 tonnes CO2) for the manufacture of the batteries and recycling, they would first be worthwhile only after 580,000 km compared to diesel engine cars.”

So what’s the take home message? If you’re concerned about CO2 warming the planet, then purchase a diesel engine car.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

70 responses to “New Study: German Mid-Sized E-Cars Produce Less CO2 Than Diesel Autos – But Only After 585,000 Kilometers!”

  1. pochas94

    This is best left to the enthusiasms of the buyer, whether an eco-religionist or somebody who likes how they torque away from a stoplight. No need to pressure with subsidies or guilt trips. If you like it and can afford it, go for it!

  2. Kenneth Richard

    If you’re concerned about CO2 warming the planet, then purchase a diesel engine car.

    And if you’re not concerned about CO2 warming the planet, then purchase a fossil fueled vehicle. They go further, are easier to maintain, and retain their resale value much better.

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/27/new-study-electric-vehicle-use-does-not-appreciably-reduce-co2-emissions/
    EV Use In Germany Potentially Reduces CO2 Emissions By Just 8.7% Compared To Low Fuel Efficiency Commercial Vans Powered By Fossil Fuels

    Ensslen et al., 2017
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616307648
    “The calculated EV [electric vehicle] emissions based on the French and German energy mix reveal significant differences between the two countries. Therefore, different reduction potentials are derived from the comparisons to comparable ICEV [internal combustion engine vehicle]. Assuming that the project vehicles would only be charged in Germany results in average time-dependent PTW [plant-to-wheel] CO2 emissions of about 147.1 g CO2/km. This is about 36% above the CO2 emissions calculated based on the norm consumption of the EV…”

    “Comparing CO2 emissions according to norm consumption of a conventional Nissan NV200 [a petrol-powered commercial van with low-average fuel efficiency] also having an identical chassis (128 g CO2/km) with the CO2 emissions calculated based on the norm energy consumption of the project EV (11 g CO2/km in France and 108 g CO2/km in Germany) leads to the conclusion that EV usage in France (Germany) is – with regard to CO2 – more environmentally friendly than usage of comparable ICEV [internal combustion engine vehicle].
    CO2 emission reduction potentials in France (Germany) consequently amount to 91.4 [France]% (15.6% [Germany]). However, additional efficiency losses in the batteries and the AC/DC charging unit (charging efficiency) increases the amount of energy needed for charging. This consequently also increases CO2 emissions and results in reduction potentials compared to ICEV [internal combustion engine vehicle] of about 90.7% in France and 8.7% in Germany.”

    1. SebastianH

      And if you’re not concerned about CO2 warming the planet, then purchase a fossil fueled vehicle. They go further, are easier to maintain, and retain their resale value much better.

      Just to clarify, do you agree with Pierre that you should buy a Diesel car instead of an electric vehicle if you are concerned about the CO2 output?

      Secondly, battery electric vehicles go much further in their lifetime. Or do you mean per fill up? Are you part of the large majority who drive more than 300 km per day every day of the week?

      They are also much much easier to maintain with fewer parts able to break.

      And last but not least, the top models retain their resale value far better than any Diesel powered car. You still have to pay 50 to 60 k€ for a 3 to 4 year old Tesla Model S and much more for the top Model S versions. At the same time, I can get a 3 year old Mercedes E 350 CDI with the top configuration for a third of the original price and that car can drive itself too.

      EV Use In Germany Potentially Reduces CO2 Emissions By Just 8.7% Compared To Low Fuel Efficiency Commercial Vans Powered By Fossil Fuels

      Another clarifying question: even if an electric vehicle would only save 8.7% CO2 compared to a ICE version, would that not be a good thing in your mind? Or is it not worthwhile because it only reduces the emission by less than 10%? And do you agree that one should add refining and transport of Diesel/gasoline to the ICE part as well? Was that done in the paper you quote (it’s paywalled)? The part you quote only mentions adding efficiency losses reduces the reduction potential from 15.6% to 8.7%. Skeptical enough to find out if they included everything?

      Are you also skeptical enough to check their numbers? 128 g CO2/km for the petrol powered version of the NV200 means it either uses just 5.5 liters of gasoline or 4.85 liters of Diesel per 100 km. That sounds unrealistic for a small transporter and doesn’t match the figures on spritmonitor.de at all. 108 g CO2/km for the electric version amounts to around 22.1 kWh/100 km which sounds plausible (only 3 cars on spritmonitor.de that average at 25.57 kWh)

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Just to clarify, do you agree with Pierre that you should buy a Diesel car instead of an electric vehicle if you are concerned about the CO2 output?

        For symbolism’s sake, it’s probably better for someone concerned about CO2 emissions to buy an EV. It makes her or him look like s/he cares about climate change.

        Secondly, battery electric vehicles go much further in their lifetime.

        I’m talking about per fill-up.

        And last but not least, the top models retain their resale value far better than any Diesel powered car.

        https://www.caranddriver.com/news/evs-are-cheap-to-run-but-expensive-to-own-thanks-to-abysmal-resale-values
        Electric vehicles lose more than $5700 per year, on average, over the first five years. That’s about $28,500 off their original price compared to an average of less than $3200 a year or $16,000 over five years across all vehicle types.

        Another clarifying question: even if an electric vehicle would only save 8.7% CO2 compared to a ICE version, would that not be a good thing in your mind?

        Um, I guess so. I don’t think an 8.7% difference is large enough to get too excited about.

        1. Yonason

          Anyone “concerned” about their CO2 emissions is so because they are brainwashed. CO2 is plant food, and we are currently only just coming out of a plant starvation regime. Increasing the atmospheric [CO2] can only be beneficial to all life on earth. Anyone wanting to reduce it is either an ignoramus or an anti-social psychopath.

          1. SebastianH

            Anyone “concerned” about their CO2 emissions is so because they are brainwashed. […]

            Go away, troll. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to energy usage. You don’t want to conserve energy? Fine, but don’t call those who do brainwashed and anti-social psychopaths.

            Increasing the atmospheric [CO2] can only be beneficial to all life on earth.

            No, and you know it (therefore troll). If you really believe in this, well … let’s stay professional here 😉

        2. SebastianH

          It makes her or him look like s/he cares about climate change.

          This warrants further clarification. Is an EV causing less emissions than a Diesel car, yes or no?

          I’m talking about per fill-up.

          That’s indeed an area where EVs can still improve. Driver who need range over everything should be able to buy cars with 200 kWh battery packs within the next decade. Not many will need this, but it certainly will be an option.

          Electric vehicles lose more than $5700 per year, on average, over the first five years. That’s about $28,500 off their original price compared to an average of less than $3200 a year or $16,000 over five years across all vehicle types.

          The link is unfortunately “not available in my region”. But I found another link that confirms your general claim: http://umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2018-4.pdf

          Doesn’t invalidate my special case though. And apparently the Chevy Bolt received some award for best resale value in 2018. Anyway, once the battery capacities don’t rapidly improve anymore with every new car hitting the market, this will stabilize. And since less parts can break, it should keep value a bit better than ICEs.

          Um, I guess so. I don’t think an 8.7% difference is large enough to get too excited about.

          Well, the fleet output automatically improves with every improvement of the power mix. That’s not possible with staying on combustion vehicles.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            This warrants further clarification. Is an EV causing less emissions than a Diesel car, yes or no?

            It depends on the country. In China, EVs emit more CO2 than fossil fueled vehicles.

          2. SebastianH

            In China, EVs emit more CO2 than fossil fueled vehicles.

            Never a clear answer from you 😉

            1) the article was about Germany (weren’t you insisting that we talk about Wetlands in the other thread, because the article was about that?)
            2) even in China “it depends”
            3) EVs generally save CO2 – even in China – if they don’t fast charge: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0133-0

            Care to answer my question for Germany? EV causing less emissions than a Diesel car, yes or no?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            In China, EVs emit more CO2 than fossil fueled vehicles.

            Never a clear answer from you

            How is this not “clear”?

            the article was about Germany

            Yes, and since it’s already been established that a low-efficiency fossil-fueled van only emits 8.7% more CO2 than EVs in Germany, I thought we were asking about EVs vs. ICEs as a whole rather than continuing to focus only on Germany.

            even in China “it depends”

            Is this a clear yes or no answer then?

            EVs generally save CO2 – even in China – if they don’t fast charge:

            And since people in China do prefer fast charge (and “fast” still takes a long 30 minutes vs. 3 minutes for a petrol fill-up), EVs in China do not reduce emissions relative to ICE vehicles.

            Care to answer my question for Germany? EV causing less emissions than a Diesel car, yes or no?

            It’s not a yes or no question. In the case cited in the paper, the gas vehicle was a low fuel efficiency van, not a high fuel efficiency ICE vehicle. And even a low fuel efficiency van “saves” just 8.7% less CO2 than a typical EV in Germany.

            Here’s the problem for your side, SebastianH: EVs will only displace 1% of expected global CO2 emissions in 2040

            http://fortune.com/2017/11/15/electric-cars-climate-change-iea/
            “Today, around 2 million of a total 1 billion vehicles on the planet run on electric or hybrid engines. The IEA expects that number to rise to 50 million by 2025, and to 280 million by 2040, as countries everywhere encourage their drivers to make the change to e-mobility. That may sound like a lot, but the problem is that that number of cars on the road will have doubled by then to 2 billion. According to Laura Cozzi, the head of the IEA’s energy demand directorate, EVs will only displace 1% of expected global CO2 emissions in 2040.

          4. SebastianH

            How is this not “clear”?

            It was a yes or no question.

            I thought we were asking about EVs vs. ICEs as a whole rather than continuing to focus only on Germany.

            No, it was about clarifying what you mean by “For symbolism’s sake, it’s probably better for someone concerned about CO2 emissions to buy an EV. It makes her or him look like s/he cares about climate change.”.

            It reads like you think EVs are only for show, so I wanted to know if you think that an EV causes less emissions than a Diesel car, yes or no?

            Is this a clear yes or no answer then?

            It’s not an answer. I am the one asking a question. Just couldn’t let your blanket claim stand there uncorrected.

            And since people in China do prefer fast charge (and “fast” still takes a long 30 minutes vs. 3 minutes for a petrol fill-up)

            Nobody prefers fast charge as it wears down the battery faster and is only for on-the-road charging. The majority charges at home or where ever they park their car during the day. Also, petrol cars don’t take 3 minutes to fill up. Time your next fill-up and be amazed. But yeah, it is nowhere as long as “fast charging” an EV on a roadtrip. So far only Tesla managed to do it in a ok-ish manner, but 300 kW chargers are on the horizon 😉

            It’s not a yes or no question. In the case cited in the paper, the gas vehicle was a low fuel efficiency van, not a high fuel efficiency ICE vehicle.

            It’s a small transporter and it is highly efficient. How much less do you think an efficient ICE version of a “car” like this would consume?!

            I’ll quote myself here:

            Are you also skeptical enough to check their numbers? 128 g CO2/km for the petrol powered version of the NV200 means it either uses just 5.5 liters of gasoline or 4.85 liters of Diesel per 100 km. That sounds unrealistic for a small transporter and doesn’t match the figures on spritmonitor.de at all.

            Do you think those liters per 100 km figures they assumed are high for a car like that? Do you think it is ok not to use real world consumptions in such a comparison? Are you really a skeptic? Or do you really believe that by quoting a study like that “it’s already been established that a low-efficiency fossil-fueled van only emits 8.7% more CO2 than EVs in Germany”?

            Here’s the problem for your side, SebastianH: EVs will only displace 1% of expected global CO2 emissions in 2040

            Yeah … EIA predictions 😉 I thought you hated models? The EIA ones regardings solar and wind growth (and now EV growth) seem to be in need of correction every damn year 😉

          5. Kenneth Richard

            So once again you purposely truncated my response to your question…

            Yes, and since it’s already been established that a low-efficiency fossil-fueled van only emits 8.7% more CO2 than EVs in Germany, I thought we were asking about EVs vs. ICEs as a whole rather than continuing to focus only on Germany.

            …so you can ask the very same question you asked before and I answered in the part you purposely truncated.

            It reads like you think EVs are only for show, so I wanted to know if you think that an EV causes less emissions than a Diesel car, yes or no?

            How many more times must I answer this same question? I’ll cut and paste again. It’s already been established that a low-efficiency fossil-fueled van only emits 8.7% more CO2 than EVs in Germany.

            Nobody prefers fast charge as it wears down the battery faster and is only for on-the-road charging.

            China has the largest public (daytime) charging stations (fast) in the world and growing. The demand for daytime fill-ups (fast) has skyrocketed (i.e., they’re constantly in use throughout the day), which is why they keep building more. And daytime charging means the energy comes mostly from the grid supplied by coal, making EVs in China subject to emitting more CO2 than fossil-fuel vehicles on net (as I have been saying). And wearing down the battery isn’t the concern in China it is in the EU, as China dominates the market on battery production and subsidizes their replacements.

            Also, petrol cars don’t take 3 minutes to fill up. Time your next fill-up and be amazed.

            It literally takes me 2-3 minutes to fill up my Hyundai Accent with gas, as I pay-at-the-pump like 95% of all the other drivers here. I’ve only been to Germany once, so I don’t know if it’s more cumbersome there. But it’s in-and-out here.

            the gas vehicle was a low fuel efficiency van, not a high fuel efficiency ICE vehicle.

            It’s a small transporter and it is highly efficient.

            Unbelievable. It’s a Nissan NV200, a large van, SebastianH. And it gets just 25 mpg tops on the highway, which is low efficiency. My seats-5 Nissan Versa (gasoline) gets 40 mpg by comparison. And even though they’re comparing an EV to a low-efficiency large van, the EV only emits 8.7% less. If my Nissan Versa was used instead as the standard for fuel efficiency, the fossil fuel vehicle would emit less than an EV in Germany.

            Are you also skeptical enough to check their numbers?

            I’m way too uninterested in taking the time to do the conversions to liters and kms from miles per gallon to bother.

            Yeah … EIA predictions 😉

            It’s not just about predictions when we have evidence that shows that all wind and solar have done is risen atop the rise in fossil fuel energy. Fossil fuels have not been displaced in recent decades despite the exponential growth in wind and solar. The same is happening with EVs. They’re just rising atop the rise in fossil-fueled car ownership that inevitably ensues as more people are lifted out of poverty.

            https://www.axios.com/despite-renewables-growth-there-has-never-been-energy-transition-e11b0cf5-ce1d-493c-b1ae-e7dbce483473.html
            Since 2010, the costs of producing electricity from solar photovoltaic systems have decreased by more than 80%. Wind and solar now vie with natural gas to provide new electricity generating capacity. To some, these trends signal the world’s latest energy transition: away from fossil fuels and toward a renewable future.

            The big picture: These historical changes in the energy system, however, have been a matter of addition, not transition. Although the percentage shares of biomass, coal and oil in our energy supply have fallen with the rise of alternatives, their total use continues to grow. The world has never experienced an energy transition, but the challenge of climate change means that, for the first time, one will need to begin.

            Since 1800 biomass consumption has increased by about 275%, and coal use by more than 60% just since 2000. Rapidly falling costs and growing investments have helped boost wind and solar power, but these energy sources — like nuclear, oil, and gas before them — are building on top of old ones, rather than replacing them.

            A true energy transition will need to reduce carbon emissions. By 2040, the International Energy Agency projects that, to reach the climate targets laid out in the Paris Agreement, global coal consumption would need to decline by more than half while oil consumption falls by almost 25%. Natural gas could continue to grow, though more slowly than today. Renewables would need to increase roughly tenfold from today’s levels to provide, together with nuclear, more than 25% of global energy.

            I thought you hated models?

            Those aren’t my words. You do not have my permission to make up positions or use word phrases that I haven’t. Does it ever stop?

          6. spike55

            “but 300 kW chargers are on the horizon”

            Not from wind and solar non-power they aren’t.

            So very strange that you STILL DON’T “GET IT”.

            Is it WILFUL IGNORANCE that the power for these EV’s MUST be rel;iable.. ie from fossil fuel, nuclear or hydro ?

            Solar DOES NOT WORK when people want to charge overnight.

            And heck, you run the battery down going to and from work, and then have an emergency.. NO CAR

            It really is totally ridiculous, and can only ever be but a tiny niche market.

            It is only held together by the IDIOCY of the anti-CO2 scam and the PRETENCE that EV’s are somehow a worthwhile proposition for normal use.

            And seriously, even attempting to compare the fill time of a petrol or diesel car. What a JOKE.

            You have to be on your meds again, seb.

          7. spike55

            I admit my V8 Commodore takes a few minutes to fill up.

            But that is a lot of petrol, and I am more than pleased to do my bit to increase atmospheric CO2 for the world’s biosphere.. 🙂

            These “believers” who think that just because the CO2 is emitted by a coal or gas fired power station far away where it can’t be seen, that they are somehow “saving the planet”… quite HILARIOUS. ! 🙂

            The amount of CO2 saved or not save, during the whole car cycle are PIDDLING to say the least.

          8. SebastianH

            …so you can ask the very same question you asked before and I answered in the part you purposely truncated.

            What exactly did I truncate? The “Yes, and since” part? How is that relevant to that sentence?

            How many more times must I answer this same question? I’ll cut and paste again. It’s already been established that a low-efficiency fossil-fueled van only emits 8.7% more CO2 than EVs in Germany.

            Then why write “It makes her or him look like s/he cares about climate change.”? Just a snarky remark?

            I’ve only been to Germany once, so I don’t know if it’s more cumbersome there.

            It is. It certainly is not as pleasant as just disconnecting your car from the home charger and reconnect it when you are back.

            Unbelievable. It’s a Nissan NV200, a large van, SebastianH. And it gets just 25 mpg tops on the highway, which is low efficiency. My seats-5 Nissan Versa (gasoline) gets 40 mpg by comparison.

            Unbelievable indeed. They state 128 g CO2/km for the CO2 emissions which equals 5.49 l/km or 42.84 mpg. Again – and I am repeating myself here – this is unrealisticly low as the spritmonitor.de figures are much higher. So it is NOT established that there is only a 8.7% saving of CO2 emissions. Not at all.

            If my Nissan Versa was used instead as the standard for fuel efficiency, the fossil fuel vehicle would emit less than an EV in Germany.

            No, it wouldn’t. Check the numbers! Be skeptical! Understand what people write about and don’t just quote key sentences of whatever you find as “established fact” (yeah, you didn’t use the word fact, I am using it anyway because that is what you do … stating things as fact that clearly aren’t).

            Also, in Germany these kind of cars are transporters or “Kastenwagen”. In the US you might call them Van … but then again you call cars trucks that we never would. So whatever, language barrier 😉

            Fossil fuels have not been displaced in recent decades despite the exponential growth in wind and solar.

            Of course wind and solar are replacing fossil fuel consumption. Do you think the same amount would have been consumed if wind and solar would not exist?

            The same is happening with EVs. They’re just rising atop the rise in fossil-fueled car ownership that inevitably ensues as more people are lifted out of poverty.

            Nope, what is happening with EVs is that they’ll get cheaper than ICEs very fast and many customers will not care that they have to stop for half an hour every 2-3 hours to charge when taking that yearly roadtrip.

            https://www.axios.com/despite-renewables-growth-there-has-never-been-energy-transition-e11b0cf5-ce1d-493c-b1ae-e7dbce483473.html

            I know for a fact that renewables are replacing fossil fuel electricity generation in Germany.

            A true energy transition will need to reduce carbon emissions.

            And it does. As states somewhere above the ADAC is using 2013 CO2/kWh figures … this metric decreased from 573 to 489 g CO2/kWh in the 4 following years: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/38897/umfrage/co2-emissionsfaktor-fuer-den-strommix-in-deutschland-seit-1990/

            I don’t know where you find your sources, but it would be good to see you become a bit more skeptical of what you post.

          9. BruceC

            @spike55

            I admit my V8 Commodore takes a few minutes to fill up.

            Ah, a man with a passion. 2003 V2 Monaro CV8-R owner here.

          10. spike55

            “I know for a fact that renewables are replacing fossil fuel electricity generation in Germany.”

            Only through political agenda.

            If you had one ounce of functional brain capacity, you would also know that is TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE from the economic, environmental, political, industrial, grid stability, etc etc perspective.

            On a total energy use in Germany, wind and solar are falling behind fossil fuels, with the increase in fossil fuel usage 2016-2017 being around 106 PJ while wind and solar only increased by about 85PJ

            Wind and solar are TOO ERRATIC and TOO UNRELIABLE to ever be used as the mainstay of electricity supply, and would NEVER have made any inroads at all without the AGW fraud/totalitarian agenda being accepted by dumb politicians.

            Its all so much IDIOCY for an unprovable anti-CO2, anti-life, supposition

  3. Kurt in Switzerland

    Cue Seb head-explosion!

    He will not be capable of comprehending.

    And biofuels are a scam, too.

    1. SebastianH

      He will not be capable of comprehending.

      If you’d be a skeptic you wouldn’t buy those numbers either, but I am guessing you believe anything that confirms your bias and is packaged by Pierre in a snarky manner (“buy Diesel!”) with no relation to the quoted article 😉

      And yes, my head exploded when looking at the something like this. I hate it when the ADAC does something like this (the study is old) … they’ve had enough scandals in the last years and don’t need to publish questionable figures with only a limited amount of car models.

      1. Bitter&twisted

        More fake news.
        Obviously this so-called study was funded or written by “Big Oil”.

        Does that help our obnoxious troll?

        1. SebastianH

          Apparently you don’t know what the ADAC is and how many scandals they had in the last years. Using consumption figures that aren’t comprehensibly and comparing cars of widely different sizes and motor power with each other, should make anyone reading studies like that skeptical about the results.

          Here is a study that paints a different picture:
          http://www.adlittle.de/sites/default/files/viewpoints/ADL_BEVs_vs_ICEVs_FINAL_November_292016.pdf

          And of course it doesn’t help when someone like Pierre “concludes” that “German Mid-Sized E-Cars Produce Less CO2 Than Diesel Autos – But Only After 585,000 Kilometers!” when upper middle class cars are certainly not mid-sized, especially not the one electric vehicle they “tested” in that class.

          So yeah, fake news.

      2. spike55

        ZERO COUNTER, just more IGNORANT RANTING from seb

        Nothing unusual is happening there.!!

        1. SebastianH

          Counter to what? Kurt didn’t write anything to counter!?

          1. spike55

            YAWN !!!

            stop your childish attention seeking and pathetic TROLL attempts .

            He said you would not be capable of understanding

            And you have proven him correct.

          2. SebastianH

            Yawn indeed … it’s funny when you call my comment “troll attempts” and post stuff like this as a reply 😉

          3. spike55

            YAWN, it is funny that you are INCAPABLE of a rational thought process.

            Kurt was correct.. you are incapable of understanding.. that’s just how it is.

            And haven’t figured out that you have the choice not to reply.

            So funny watching you run round and round and round like a headless chook.. Without even realising it. 🙂

            You do it ONLY as a childish attempt at trolling, don’t you…

            That is your ONLY purpose, isn’t it.

            TELL THE TRUTH.. at least to yourself.

  4. John F. Hultquist

    The ADAC calls the results of their comparison “surprising”.

    Dumb, but honest.
    Can you get them to investigate wind mills?

  5. SebastianH

    The results were very surprising, says German magazine Autobild here.

    Don’t. Quote. Autobild.

    It’s equally as worse as quoting from bild.de directly or dailycaller or any other tabloid nonsense. There is no reference of any ADAC publication in that whole article. But a few key point should have made you skeptical … you are a skeptic, right?
    1) They say CNG cars got tested, but not one mention of them despite them clearly being the most CO2 friendly technology for combustion engine cars.
    2) using CO2 per kWh figures from 2013 instead of 2017 with the argument that new test results aren’t available yet? What? They mention the Tesla X, a car that came to market in late 2015!
    3) the mentioned numbers … they don’t add up. According to spritmonitor.de a BMW i3 would need 22335 kWh of electricity to drive 150000 km. That is 12.8 tonnes of CO2 at 2013 emission levels (2 tonnes less at 2017 levels). A Toyota Yaris (same class according to that article) consumes 9180 liters of gasoline emitting 21.4 tonnes of CO2 for the same distance. And so on … yeah, there is the battery, but I doubt that’s the big CO2 emitting difference when comparing the i3 to a Yaris.

    In their comparison, however, the ADAC came up with some unexpected results. CO2 cars indeed have huge CO2 footprints.

    Not really. A big electric vehicle has a big battery and thus a big production footprint … if the battery was made using the same power mix as Germany. But at least Tesla (the car being used in the uper middle class comparison) claims to produce them with 100% renewables.

    Oh, for reference and to further the “scientific discussion”, the original CO2 study from the ADAC from March 2018:
    https://www.adac.de/der-adac/motorwelt/reportagen-berichte/auto-innovation/studie-oekobilanz-pkw-antriebe-2018/
    And this for a list of the cars they used:
    https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/umwelt-und-innovation/abgas/oekobilanz/default.aspx

    They really compared the Tesla Model X 100D to a Merceded E 220 d in the upper middle class 😉 And they used 5 liters per 100 km as the consumption for that car despite 3 vehicles on spritmonitor.de reaching those figures. The average is 6.5 liters over there. That 25.9 tonnes of CO2 right there. Of course they could have taking the entire Mercedes E-class line up which averages at 7.77 liters of Diesel or 30.8 tonnes of CO2 per 150000 km.

    In short, the study is weird and they should rethink their methods. It’s on par with that swedish study that circulated a while back.

    Note that electric cars traveling 150,000 km are rare, if they exist at all.

    That is not true. Most owners of electric vehicles quickly make this car their first one and drive it all the time. Clicking on random electric vehicles on spritmonitor.de also reveals they drive above average total distance per year.

    The ADAC calls the results of their comparison “surprising”.

    They don’t. Autobild is calling it surprising. See link to the ADAC website above.

    In other words, with Germany’s current electric power supply mix, even small e-cars still have a greater CO2 budget than diesel powered ones of the same class for longer lifetime distances.

    No they don’t. As you wrote right before this paragraph that is only true for the upper middleclass where they used a Diesel car with unrealistic low liters/km figures and compared it to a Tesla Model X, the current heavy weight champion electric vehicle at 2013 CO2 per kWh figures despite that car not being available before the end of 2015. It’s weird. Compare it to a Diesel A6 with 200+ PS (or whatever compares best to a 7 seater car in the upper middle class) and you get a consumption of 8.68 liters of Diesel per 100 km instead of the 5 they used for the E 220 d 😉

    So what’s the take home message? If you’re concerned about CO2 warming the planet, then purchase a diesel engine car.

    I know you try to be snarky here, but that is not the message at all. Especially for short trips you mentioned above Diesel cars will consume much more fuel than necessary.

    The message to take home is, that the ADAC should update its test asap. It’s flawed and I don’t see any real reason why it has to be this way.

    1. Yonason

      “In short, the study is weird and they should rethink their methods.” – SebH

      Yeah. Maybe they should hire your favorite “scientist,” skepticalscience’s John Cook, as an experimental design consultant?
      http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

      😉

      1. SebastianH

        I wonder why you put scientist in quotes there, Yonason. Is someone who has a PhD and is employed as a research assistant professor not a scientist?

        But yeah, the ADAC should hire someone who reviews their publications and points out the obvious flaws. And Autobild/Bild/Dailycaller should hire actual journalists while we are at it 😉

        And you should spread less hate and disinformation. Unless you are trying to troll me, then it’s fine. Continue on your chosen path!

        1. Kenneth Richard

          I wonder why you put scientist in quotes there, Yonason. Is someone who has a PhD and is employed as a research assistant professor not a scientist?

          This is a little odd coming from you, SebastianH. Just last week you put quotes around the word scientist when referring to Dr. Nikolov.

          And you should spread less hate and disinformation.

          Also a bit odd coming from you, SebastianH.

          1. SebastianH

            This is a little odd coming from you, SebastianH. Just last week you put quotes around the word scientist when referring to Dr. Nikolov.

            Well I am not saying that Dr. Nikolov is a cartoon artist, am I?

            What is odd – and I am trying to point that out here – is that you guys do this all the time. Going the adhom way when nothing else helps …

            And you should spread less hate and disinformation.

            Also a bit odd coming from you, SebastianH.

            How so? Do you even read what your fellow commenters write on this blog of yours?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Well I am not saying that Dr. Nikolov is a cartoon artist, am I?

            Uh, it would be odd for you say he’s a cartoon artist since that’s not what he has claimed he is.

            No, by putting the word scientist in quotes when referring to Dr. Nikolov, you’re insinuating he’s not a real scientist.

            John Cook himself has said he is not a scientist, but a cartoon artist. I couldn’t care less if he’s neither. I concern myself more with the substance of what someone — with or without a degree in climate science — writes, or says. Perhaps you should do the same rather than calling people names like “fraud” and citing a critic who hasn’t read his book to dismiss him as a person?

            By the way, I’ve asked you 3 times why you decided to characterize Peter Taylor as a “fraud”. That’s a pretty serious accusation. What’s your evidence?

          3. spike55

            Dr Nikolov is a scientist.

            You will NEVER be one.

            Your mind is not capable of rational thought, seb.

            John Cook is a cartoon artist, he did that rather than actually work, and he’s a pretty pathetic one, too.

            and he is most definitely NOT a scientist.

            You have no choice BUT ad hom’s seb.

            Your every post is ladened with them.

            You certainly have NO EVIDENCE or SCIENCE to back up anything you say.

            You avoid evidence and science like it was the plague.. You watch as you do it again.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          4. SebastianH

            No, by putting the word scientist in quotes when referring to Dr. Nikolov, you’re insinuating he’s not a real scientist.

            Not really. I am questioning his ability to do science though when he comes up with that load of … well, let’s stay professional.

            John Cook himself has said he is not a scientist, but a cartoon artist.

            So Peter Taylor said he is not a scientists, but an imposter. At least Cook got a PhD later on 😉

            I concern myself more with the substance of what someone — with or without a degree in climate science — writes, or says. Perhaps you should do the same rather than calling people names like “fraud” and citing a critic who hasn’t read his book to dismiss him as a person?

            The biography of a person should make you skeptical about what this person writes if it is dodgy (I told you why Taylors statement about a null hypothesis has no substance, don’t know if you replied … it’s hard to keep track of comments on this blog).

            By the way, I’ve asked you 3 times why you decided to characterize Peter Taylor as a “fraud”. That’s a pretty serious accusation. What’s your evidence?

            Himself writing that he is an imposter in his autobiography? His appearance at conferences with questionable claims?

          5. Kenneth Richard

            Not really. I am questioning his ability to do science though

            No, you’re just hurling ad hominems from afar and misrepresenting what his papers say and employing irrelevant analogies. You know it wouldn’t go well if you were to directly engage with him on his twitter page.

            By the way, I’ve asked you 3 times why you decided to characterize Peter Taylor as a “fraud”. That’s a pretty serious accusation. What’s your evidence?

            Himself writing that he is an imposter in his autobiography?

            And “admitting” that he is not a scientist makes him a “fraud” how?

            His appearance at conferences with questionable claims?

            So if he presents material at conferences that you deem “questionable”, this is grounds to call him a “fraud” (i.e., “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain”)?

            SebastianH, you don’t know who Peter Taylor is. He’s an environmentalist activist in the mold of Bjorn Lomborg who worked for the UK government to promote fundamental transition to renewable energy. He was regularly cited and asked to speak by those on your side…until he began to look into the science and realize that much of the emphasis on renewables actually hurts poor people or is counterproductive. So he changed sides in the mid-2000s. After that, your side no longer asked him to speak at their conferences. People like you — who have never read his stuff or who don’t know who he is — now think it’s enough to call him a fraud and dismiss what he has to say. You’d never do such a thing had he remained quiet and “in the fold”.

        2. spike55

          Funny, hey.

          According to seb, everyone is trying to troll him.

          Ever thought this might be purely a REFLECTION of your own actions, seb ?

          Poor little headless-chook must live in a house of mirrors, just to stroke his baseless ego.

          1. SebastianH

            Mostly you, spike55. And Yonason. And sunsettommy. And Bitter&T-something …

            Yes, I thought about if it could be me. I let someone else look over the comments and nope, it’s not. You are obsessed with replying in this trollish manner to whatever I write. And in recent months you guys even call for my response by name in first level comments. So, nope not a reflection my own actions.

          2. spike55

            Poor seb

            Still showing he is totally unable to look at the fool he continually makes of himself.

            Keep your puerile attempts at trolling coming, seb.

            Its hilarious watching you trying to LIE TO YOURSELF, when you know full-well that TROLLING is your only purpose here.

            But that trolling is all you have in your pitiful life, isn’t it, seb… Your reason for existence.

            Come on, what do you see as your purpose here, seb? Dare you answer? 😉

            Apart from wasting space and time, you have achieved absolutely nothing, you have been TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE at supporting basically any of the fabrications and fallacies you rant about.

            To continue on your present path, having FAILED MAGNIFICENTLY at every point, is an idiot’s choice, the choice of someone with a deep-seated mental malfunction.

            But you can’t escape, can you seb.. 🙂

            Trolling this forum is the ONLY THING you have you feel is worthwhile in your life.

            You certainly have NO EVIDENCE to back up the anything you say, and you are TOTALLY EVIDENCE FREE on science to support your AGW scam religion.

          3. Yonason

            “It’s not my imagination, everyone is trolling me. I asked someone, and he told me I wasn’t crazy. Yes, that must be it. It’s all you who are crazy, not me.”SebH

            You are one of a kind. I’ll give you that.

          4. spike55

            “I let someone else look over the comments and nope, it’s not”

            Were you holding his hand at the time?

            Sorry seb, no matter if you phone a monkey, it is YOU that is the troll here.

            I notice that yet again, you refuse to state what you think are trying to accomplish here.

            What is your purpose ?

            You have NO EVIDENCE, so it can only be that you are here as a TROLL

            Because apart from wasting space and wasting everyone’s time, you have accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except to make an abject FOOL of yourself.

          5. Yonason

            “…no matter if you phone a monkey,…” – spike55

            What? You’re saying he got an EXPERT opinion? I can’t believe it. If he did, he probably bribed the monkey (aka, the guy in the mirror).

            That reminds me of what Timothy Leary once said when asked if the LSD was affecting his sanity adversely – “No, it isn’t. I know because I keep a notebook.” Oooooh Kaaay Then.

            Talk about getting an “expert” opinion!

        3. spike55

          John Cook is NOT a scientist,

          He has done very little actual science, and knows next to nothing about climate.

          His scammed PhD is in psychology or some other non science.

          He does not research climate science, he researches climate science PROPAGANDA.

          1. SebastianH

            Just wow …

          2. spike55

            Just WOW, ..

            .. that you didn’t already know that. !!

        4. Yonason

          John Cook has a PhD in “Cognitive Psychology,” which in view of what I link to below perfectly justifies my writing “scientist” when applied to him.

          Even if that were a credible profession, he would not be a credit to it, as I’ve pointed out before.
          http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/02/oslo-professor-the-deceptive-tactics-used-by-agw-believers-mark-an-epic-marketing-failure/#comment-1267404

          SebH knows this, yet persists in ignoring it, preferring to point only that he has a PhD. But if he’s a dishonest one, all the more shame on him and those who awarded an advanced degree to him.

          1. SebastianH

            John Cook has a PhD in “Cognitive Psychology,” which in view of what I link to below perfectly justifies my writing “scientist” when applied to him.

            Also … just wow!

            Even if that were a credible profession

            Double wow!

            You’ve just lost the rest of any credibility you might had left. I don’t even bother to reply to your other comment here to not drive my comment count up. It’s just a super sad strategy, Florida man.

          2. spike55

            Again, seb runs away from the FACTS and the TRUTH.

            Unable to counter a single thing said.. just “*sighs* or goes *WOW*

            PATHETIC.

            Seb doesn’t understand that the sort of stuff Cook works with as much EVIDENCE FREE and a load of gibberish as the AGW scam is.

            You have negative credibility seb, even more so by pretending that Cook is anything but a low-life propaganda monkey.

            You can’t even pretend to support the very basis of your fetid little anti-science religion.

            But he is your kind of guy, right.

            Slimy, dishonest, exists in a closed-off little make-believe world, totally walled off from reality or rational thought or behaviour.

          3. Yonason

            @spike

            He does have a very limited repertoire, doesn’t he!

          4. SebastianH

            spike55, some day you’ll hopefully realize that what you do is evidence free ranting. Until then, good look with that clown performance.

          5. Yonason

            Speaking of frauds…
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/

            Will the REAL John Cook stand up.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/31/john-cook-lewandowsky-claims-psychological-vaccine-against-climate-wrongthink/

            That is the sick pretender the activist Internet brown-shirt trolls want us to believe is telling the truth.

            Academia has sunk pretty low to award a PhD to someone who so proudly wears the uniform of those who brought so mich evil to the world.

          6. spike55

            And yes seb,

            I do understand that basically all of the people you see would be clinical psychologists.

            They faced an uphill battle, but have failed.

            Their treatments aren’t working for you, are they, little troll.

            You appear to be going backwards, mentally and cognitively, with every post.

        5. Yonason

          As SebH knows, I’ve posted on Cook more than once. Here’s another that was in response to the troll “Jack Dale.”
          http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/#comment-1228529

          Cook’s PhD has less weight with me than a goose down feather. Same for your highly biased and evasive fact-free opinions.

          The psychological sciences can be very valid, when practiced by intelligent and HONEST academics, like Jose Duarte for instance (see above link) and John J. Ray. But it only takes one loose cannon like John Cook to give their field a bad reputation. But thanks for standing by Cook and his Ilk (like Oreskes), so we can know that you are no more credible than they.

    2. spike55

      “Don’t. Quote. Autobild.”

      Certainly never bother quote anything seb says or points to.

      YOU are not the arbiter of what people can quote, seb

      1. SebastianH

        YOU are not the arbiter of what people can quote, seb

        Why would I? But what does it tell an audience when you use shitty sources to make a point? At least Yonason seems to have stopped linking to dailycaller or breitbart or whatever tabloid nonsense he read last 😉

        1. spike55

          Whereas you link to ZERO EVIDENCE to back up the most basic fallacy of the AGW FARCE

          Because you are INCAPABLE.

          If you say something is a shitty source, all it means is that you don’t like what was written and can’t counter it with any rational argument.

          It means that it is probably quite reputable.

          Seb-troll doesn’t like it??? must be near the TRUTH.

        2. Yonason

          “At least Yonason seems to have stopped linking to dailycaller or breitbart or whatever tabloid nonsense he read last” – SebH (brownshirt troll)

          Nothing wrong with either of those, and I will continue to use them until someone can show me why I shouldn’t. If he thinks there is, he should prove it with references, as I have with his deceitful antiscience blogs “carbonbrief,” and “skepticalscience.”

          What I will not do is take advice or criticism from someone as dishonest as SebH.

  6. Robert Folkerts

    For eight years I drove a Lexus Gs450h performance hybrid. I loved the way it drove, and the silence when the petrol engine was not being used. Was a fantastic car, BUT, I did start to get a bit nervous about the possibility I might have to replace the battery pack at some point.
    SO I traded it on a 6.2l GMC Sierra 4wd pickup truck. Which I tow my boat with . 420hp truck 300hp boat.
    Maybe one day Elon will have electric options for both, and without the feared ” range anxiety”!!!

  7. RegGuheert

    I have to say that we have really lost our way on this planet when we base our purchasing decisions, even partially, on how much CO2 a car emits over its lifetime. The only way that this idea is the least bit reasonable is if CO2 is used as a proxy for how much POLLUTION and/or DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT is done in the manufacture/use/recycling of the vehicle. (And, no, CO2 is neither pollution nor damaging to the environment.)

    Our primary vehicle is a 2011 Nissan LEAF. It turned over 60,000 miles today after 6.5 years of faithful service. It’s a great car, but like everything else, it has its pluses and minuses. Pertinent to this discussion I will point out the following:
    – I seriously doubt this vehicle benefited the environment versus a similar-sized hybrid, even though it is primarily fueled using photovoltaic panels. I came to this conclusion mainly for the reasons noted in the article: It took a LOT of resources and energy in 2011 to manufacture the battery. The battery in the new LEAF uses a similar amount of resources, but requires much less energy to manufacture.
    – There is NO WAY our battery will last for 585,000 km. ‘Nuff said.

    That said, recent battery advances in the area of solid electrolytes mean that very-near-future batteries will be cheaper, safer, and will have higher capacity than ever. They will also have extremely long life. The simple result is that battery-electric vehicles will eventually replace internal combustion engine vehicles. I don’t know how long the transition will take, but it seems quite inevitable based on technology that exists today.

    Like everything else, time will tell.

    1. SebastianH

      I seriously doubt this vehicle benefited the environment versus a similar-sized hybrid, even though it is primarily fueled using photovoltaic panels. I came to this conclusion mainly for the reasons noted in the article

      As can be seen on the ADAC website itself the compact car class causes roughly the same emissions for the production for all the different types. EVs are on par with gasoline or Diesel cars except they add 128.85 kg CO2 per kWh capacity. The Nissan Leaf has a 24 kWh battery, so you have to drive long enough to make up for 3092.4 kg of CO2 compared to a gasoline car. Hybrids consume ~1800 kg more CO2 during production (according to the ADAC thing).

      Spritmonitor.de tells us that the average consumption is 15.88 kWh per 100 km, let’s say 19 kWh after accounting for inefficent charging. In Germany that would amount to 93 g CO2/km. The Toyota Auris Hybrid needs around 5.3 l/100 km and thus emits 123.5 g CO2/km. To recover 1300 kg of CO2 (hybrid) from the production you only need to drive 42623 km with your Nissan Leaf. Compared to a regular Toyota Auris it’s about the same distance.

      There is NO WAY our battery will last for 585,000 km. ‘Nuff said.

      It doesn’t need to (see above). But it can make it to 150000 miles: https://insideevs.com/exclusive-interview-with-steve-marsh-as-his-nissan-leaf-hits-150000-miles-original-battery/

      That said, recent battery advances in the area of solid electrolytes mean that very-near-future batteries will be cheaper, safer, and will have higher capacity than ever.

      That is what we can expect.

      They will also have extremely long life.

      They already have a long life for the bigger packs. Getting 300 km from a 1000 cycle battery pack results in 300000 km before it significantly degrades.

      The simple result is that battery-electric vehicles will eventually replace internal combustion engine vehicles. I don’t know how long the transition will take, but it seems quite inevitable based on technology that exists today.

      I second that. It seems inevitable. They will be much cheaper to operate and are way more fun to drive. Volkswagen expects to sell an EV in the early 2020s that doesn’t cost more than their comparable Diesel version.

      The next 5 years will be very interesting even though Kenneth believes EVs will never catch on 😉

      1. RegGuheert

        SebastianH: “But it can make it to 150000 miles: https://insideevs.com/exclusive-interview-with-steve-marsh-as-his-nissan-leaf-hits-150000-miles-original-battery/

        That is a common misconception, so let me set the record straight. There are two significant factors in Steve Marsh’s case which mean that he can achieve much more total range from his 2011 LEAF than I can:

        1) There are two main types of capacity loss in Li-ion batteries: cycling loss and calendar loss. Cycling loss occurs due to discharging and recharging the battery as a result of driving. It is roughly proportional to miles driven. Calendar losses accumulate as a function of time, regardless of whether the battery is cycled or not. Steve Marsh (and battery manufacturers) achieve high mileage by cycling the battery rapidly and thereby minimizing the effect of calendar losses. Steve Marsh did that by fully discharging the battery each way to and from work, thus achieving two FULL cycles each day. That way, his LEAF traveled about as many miles as possible while minimizing calendar losses. My LEAF, OTOH, has been driven fewer than 10,000 miles each year on average. As a result, calendar losses are dominant in my case and are higher than cycling losses.

        2) Steve Marsh lives in a cooler climate than I do, so his degradation rates (both cycling and calendar) occur more slowly than they do here.

        As a result of these two factors, my LEAF will likely achieve fewer than 50% as much total range as will Steve Marsh’s LEAF.

        1. SebastianH

          Did the original Leaf have some kind of warranty on the battery pack? A quick Google search reveals 5 years or 60000 miles. Is that true?

          1. RegGuheert

            What you are mentioning is a warranty against excess “gradual” capacity loss. The car came with no such warranty, but Nissan added one as you describe about two years later as a settlement to a class-action lawsuit. Many, many LEAF batteries have been replaced under this warranty. In hot places like Phoenix, AZ, some cars had their original batteries replaced after 20,000 to 30,000 miles. Some have even had their batteries replaced TWICE under that warranty.

            Our LEAF easily made it past the 5 year provision and also now has surpassed the 60,000 part of the capacity warranty.

            FWIW, all LEAF batteries in the US originally came with an 8-year, 100,000-mile warranty against factory defects or sudden failure. Very few LEAF batteries have been replaced under this warranty.

            Also FWIW, I do not know of a single LEAF which has burned up due to a fire in the main battery, although a few have burned up due to other causes.

  8. Lasse
    1. spike55

      GO AUSTRALIA !!!

      Great to see we are doing our part for world agricultural growth and other plant life.

      You other countries.. WHY should we have to keep supporting your agriculture ???

      I should add, the in high electricity use period, Queensland (that’s the really dark one) feeds electricity to NSW (darkish brown), who in turn feeds it to Victoria (mid brown) who then feed to South Australia (light brown) so really, they are all about equal.

      Tasmania (green) is basically all Hydro, because they can, and they have a tiny electricity use anyway, being almost totally devoid of any real industry

      Western Australia, is almost all gas.

      New Zealand also has a small industrial base, and are able to use mostly hydro and geothermal because of their terrain and volcanic activity.

      Wind and solar are basically NON-ENTITIES.

  9. Ulric Lyons

    CO2 isn’t dirty. Diesels should rightfully be villainized as polluters and people killers.

  10. R. de Haan

    I have nothing against new technologies but we don’t need electric cars, wind mills or solar energy to reduce Co2 emissions because there is not a shred of empirical evidence that C02 influences our climate.

    End of story.

    The so called green and sustainable economy is nothing more but a pipe dream of a bunch of wannabee Apparatchiks who are also responsible the hoax of global warming, sea level rise, peak oil and melting ice caps.

    One big bottle of snake oil.

    The only threat that is real is the fact that our liberties, freedom, privacy and prosperity is at stake.

    Cheers.

    1. Yonason

      @R. de Haan

      PRECISELY!

  11. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: October 1, 2018 - Master Resource

    […] Study: Diesel cars produce less CO2 than Electric vehicles […]

  12. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – October 1st 2018 | PA Pundits - International

    […] Study: Diesel cars produce less CO2 than Electric vehicles […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close