Don't forget. It makes more sense from a green perspective to keep your old car running and well-maintained as long as you can. There are significant environmental costs to both manufacturing a new automobile and adding your old car to the ever-growing collective junk heap.

@SirDetMist have you ever driven one? There super nice actually. You won't be able to buy a gas car in twenty years, not because they'll be banned but because so few people will want one that they'll be unprofitable to manufacture

@NotMyActualName No, the fact is electric cars are shite.

@Jae White You are talking about Lead starter batteries in ICE cars, not Lithium Ion batteries, in most chemistries there isn't even a single atom of sulphur in the whole battery pack...

@NotMyActualName modern diesel systems are cleaner then natural gas vehicles

@Karl Günter Wünsch except batteries also offgas, they just release sulphuric oxide instead of carbon. I think that sounds like a bigger environmental threat. There is a reason batteries have vent tubes

Great presentation, and I agree with an overall point being made here about considering CO2 emissions from pre-production to end of life for products. However, the data assumes gasoline is magically in our tanks; the graph represents CO2 emissions from burning the gasoline; but, he did not expand his box for the conventional car in the same way he did for the electric car. He accounts for both their car-production CO2 "penalties", but only accounts for CO2 emissions in the creation of electricity (an electric car's "fuel"), that is, coal harvesting and burning, for example. He does not account for the CO2 emissions from creating gasoline (i.e., harvesting and oil refinement). As a result, car production CO2 values are included for all types of vehicles, but CO2 emissions from "fuel" production is only included for the electric vehicle types. Now I know there's a big hole we can down here regarding CO2 emissions from their respective "fuel" creations (e.g. transportation, infrastructure, etc) I'm just speaking in general terms. If you did it for electricity, should do a basic inclusion on the gasoline side (oil refinery)

What about the CO2 emissions of the cargo ships to transport the oil/minerals/materials/batteries across the world. The CO2 emissions in manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines? The CO2 emissions of importing oil from other countries that cannot produce it as efficiently as the US or Canada? Until Cargo ships, trains, and semi trucks are electric, how is forcing people in the United States to drive electric cars withing the next 10 years going to save the world? Especially when our infrastructure is no where near being close to being able to support such a rapid change. And that's not even mentioning the disposal of all these batteries and such when they've exceeded their usefulness.

Yes, from the prep at the drilling site, the C02 injection during fracking, the leaking at the well-head, energy costs to transport through pipeline, to refinery efficiency, through pipeline to storage, and then via diesel trucks to filling stations there is a lot of unaccounted for GHG emissions in the upstream for fossil fuels.

I have a Chevrolet Volt...a "series hybrid" for my daily commute, so I purchase about 17 gallons of gasoline per year. It's far and away more effecient than any "parallel hybrid". These types of cars are what should have been pushed into production while we wait for "full EV" technology to catch up.

This reinforces my belief around the importance of buying less, but when we do buy, buying the most durable/quality products on the market and then taking care of them for maximum life.

@J4Zonian but no one would care anyway because we live in capitalistic society where everyone cares only about money. And that will be the end of all of us.

@J4Zonian Agreed that riding bicycles, public transit, and walking are key. I support making cities more bicycle friendly, it is such a win. Also, agree on sharing, renting, and leasing. Do you have any research that supports "EVs pay off the $, energy & carbon costs of their construction in an average of 2 years compared to ICEVS, & of course even old EVs keep getting cleaner as the grids that power them get cleaner, which they are, though too slowly." Also, do you know much about recycling EV batteries?

I suspect every figure mentioned (got your attention?), but I applaud the presentation. When this audience (us) has assimilated this information, they will be able to at least challenge others. Awareness of the complexity of the equation is a step in the right direction. Battery technology, materials acquisition, and manufacturing efficiency are all in flux, on the steep part of the learning curve. The same can be said for solar cells (an non-PV solar). I would like to see more information on thermal issues, such as comparing incident solar radiation absorbed/reflected off into space, on various bare soils, or crops VS. absorbed/reflected off into space by solar farms. PV solar cells absorb a lot of heat that is not reflected and is not converted into electricity. It might turn out that some crops are so good at absorbing CO2 and solar radiation they they could provide more benefit per acre/hectare, as a PV farm. We won’t know until we know, you know? Keep digging!

It takes a lot of energy to produce these vehicles, so hold onto your vehicles longer, your clothes, phones etc longer. However, big companies don’t want this to happen.

also what does elon musk 7 other companies have in car eneny requirement troubles, though & even as fact such soalr panels can be fitted in cars, juts no guts yet!!

After 13000 miles a tesla creates less CO2 than a gas vehicle after factoring in lifecycle co2.

They PURPOSELY build and make things that break down in specific ways. So they HAVE to be replaced every 3-5 years

To produce ELECTRICITY, WE MUST BURN COAL or, ATOMIC ENERGY ANYONE?

We need to be developing and building 4th generation nuclear power plants. Eventually, the technologies for renewable energy will be the future but right now we need to get away from burning carbon based fuels as quickly as possible.

Something different to make us think rather than just accept. In many countries there are already national blackouts, and both construction and farming machines among others, require a lot of power, and these should also be included in the picture for the future.

You will go crazy with the cost and time spent to buy food and wait for highway and construction projects if battery power is required for heavy and agricultural equipment.

Very enjoyable talk. I would like to know when comparing then two vehicles you didn’t include the energy/CO2 produced from the gas that was needed to propel the gas powered vehicles into your calculations? Thanks again.

It was a wrong talk 2 years ago, leaving out important aspects and it has aged as well as a bottle of fresh milk outside the fridge would over the same time...

@Scott Fet I appreciate the point but why is this post identical to numerous others including the misspelling?

Probably cancels out in for the case of electricity produced by 60% coal and nat. gas source.

I agree with your evaluation. You lack one important part which I think you could and should add. This is the CO2 required to produce solar and wind farms and again to recycle or dispose of them when they age out. This data needs to be considered as many climate deniers use this in their reasoning.

in australia they want to put wind farm blades in the tip , not recycle them . its there cheapest solution

And rightly so

He makes great points! BUT "renewable sources" of energy still produce a HUGE about of waste and are damaging to the environment. If we would encourage Nuclear power as the main source of power, the amount of effect on the environment would be by far the lowest.

The only downside of nuclear is that you can end up with a Chernobyl or Fukushima disaster, or something worse.

@jimmy76103 nobody died Three Mile Island and there's no way that we would build a nuclear power plant like Chernobyl

@Tony Duncan tell that to the people around 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. I'm willing to bet they won't agree with you on nuclear being so safe.

@DudeLF Maybe because of the politics? The need for a global solution would imply global access to the knowledge and materials necessary to produce the nuclear bomb.

Word up Dan Biek!!! I always thought Nuclear everything would be fantastic!

There is a huge amount data missing from his calculation : the battery gets produces one time and that has a cost in CO2 emission, but what he leaves intentionally out of the calculation is the cost of the gasoline production each day! And that is an enormous amount of CO2: Extraction of oil, Shipping and transportation Chemical treatment and transformation. Put this in your calculations and see the balance change!

Great presentation but there is an important point that is missed. If we "pushed the green button", our antiquated power grid with it's centralized generation wouldn't be able to handle the added customer demand due to all the vehicle charging. Rapid adoption of EVs and their associated charging stations can actually drive faster adoption of solar, wind, and battery storage systems due to the financial picture of utility upgrades vs install of renewables. Renewable resources and battery storage can help "flatten the curve" of utility peak demand. In short, rapid change to EVs = more rapid change to a decentralized power grid which should really be our end goal.

@dallasbrat81 That 'rebate' means SOMEONE ELSE is paying for you. The Govt doesn't have any money except what it takes from another taxpayer. You also have to calculate road tax as Govt will have to replace the revenue lost from gasoline sales.

@Rick DeVuyst ok how much Kw ? Nego with the guy. Govt gives you like 26% rebate so I finance about 37k over 20yrs at 1.9% for about $167 mth power verses $450 mth

@dallasbrat81 Locally, it is $70K to solar power a house. I love the idea of photovoltaics, but its just not affordable, nor practical, IMO.

@dallasbrat81 Sorry but what makes you think anyone is passing any bill that does anything good? Sounds like it would be nice, though. If only... See you on the other side of the apocalypse.

Love how he talks about the production or Co2 for electric production and where the electricity comes from but forgets that fuel comes from magical pumps on each corner not just the Co2 from the tailpipe. As he said have to look outside the box, so look outside the box and include the production of fuel. This negates his whole argument.

@Ron C It more than negates the whole point, the box for the gasoline would need to include 42 kWh of additional energy for every 6 litres of fuel - half of that in electricity which comes from either the very same grid he based his errant calculations on or worse comes from diesel powered generators which have an even worse footprint). So to get 6 litres of fuel Well to Tank the oil industry spends around 20 kWh of electricity - which would allow the EV to drive the same distance the ICE car would be able by burning the fuel. So that shifts the balance completely towards the EV and the ICE shows it's true horrendous colors by requiring 22 kWh of additional energy (mostly burnt crude oil when heating the crude oil during pumping and refining) and the total waste of 6 litres of fuel.

@Matt Gayle that's because he made a mistake explaining it: the grass is the "fuel" for the horse, so when using grass-fuel, you can easily recapture the CO2, you can remake the fuel .. it's not just an exploitation of available (and non-renewable) fuel, in contrast with the other fuels discussed.

Did anyone notice that when the horse released co2 that the grass took it in and that was shown as "good". But when the corvette released co2, for some reason that was special co2 that couldn't be used by the grass...it just went up into the atmosphere and is bad. Even though horse co2 was said to be equal to corvette co2.

I wouldn't say it negates but good point. It certainly needs to be included. He left out a lot of production process on both sides.

@mojo schmee But he is not just talking about just producing a vehicle, he is talking about how far you have to drive the vehicle to break even. Driving requires energy. Crude oil has to be extracted from the ground. That process releases CO2. Crude oil has to be transported to an oil refinery. That process releases CO2. Refining oil into gasoline releases CO2. Transporting gasoline across the ocean or to a gas station releases CO2. Pumping gas releases CO2. The gas station requires electricity to operate. All of the previous processes require a tremendous amount of electricity from power plants or diesel generators which in turn releases CO2. That is the box that a gas powered car is in. I agree that it is not simply how much CO2 is released from the tailpipe. It is how much CO2 is released before the energy is put in the tank plus what is released from the tailpipe.

Love that this had to be "fact checked". Wonder what an updated talk would look like in numbers.

@Karl Günter Wünsch Watch the video you are commenting under! At best they are 20% better! EVs are not going to fulfill their potential if we don't sort the energy sector.

@Tore Lund Current lifetime analysis have shown the BEV to be 89% better than comparable ICE cars…

@Karl Günter Wünsch Please you are off here. Regenerative breaking saves on hills and around 20% in city driving. An EV is not 90% efficient. A model 3 is 72% efficient from socket to tyres at highway speed 65mph according to EPA figures. The numbers are right there in the official documentation. Also Comparing efficiency of a combustion engine is not simply taking the energy content in gasoline and Oxygen and magically convert it to electricity! Physics does not work like that. The Carnot efficiency of an an engine working on temperature differential, can theoretically not have a higher efficiency than 65% Heat is a a high entropy energy source, and electricity is a low entropy one, so you are comparing apples and oranges. What is important is emissions, and the EV wins there, but over all, an EV less efficient than a combustion engine. Remember a wind turbine is only 60% efficient and solar panels 22%, so more energy is lost when making an EV go than simply pumping oil and refining it. There is a reason why it has been a long process quitting the oil addiction. NB.: It also depends where you live and why you drive an EV: In the US Grid emissions are 455g CO2/kWh, so if you drive a model 3 there, you emit 160g CO2 per mile or as much as a small Diesel engined car. If you are in Norway with 98% renewables, your consciousness is clean, but there are too many peole expressing their opinion on EVs who have no idea of how reality works.

@Tore Lund You would be correct if they used the same crude way as ICE cars to break. Unfortunately for your argument they use regenerative breaking through their motors which recovers around 80% of the movement energy back into usable electricity. Your maths are woefully wrong through as to be on par with the tesla the ICE car would need to be using only half a litre of petrol over the same distance.

@John Fitzmaurice I has too, currently $8.40 per gallon, but electricity has wilder swings and the overhead fast chargers add, is sometimes excessive. AC charging is reasonable and always around half price of gas per mile. You can also put it another way: A smaller or more efficient EV brings greater reductions per car it replaces, so it becomes both easier to make them, and the effect of each EV becomes more significant.

Excellent presentation, but I still wonder why nuclear is never part of the solution. There is nothing remotely close to it in clean energy production, and over all the years we've used it, very little damage has occurred, and always when safety protocols were ignored. I would love to see the graphs with nuclear energy used. Oh, and we also have reactors now that can reuse the waste, producing basically no nuclear waste. Why not?

@David Humphrey Agree with you but for one point. I have confidence that we will evolve battery storage to where we do not need nuclear power. Not saying we should not use it. See it as an option.

I would agree with you on all of it but why not because it overlooks the problem of the fallible human condition, and the damage we can do with this is far worse than the damage we could do with anything else. Because of our human nature.

@Dean G How so ?

@seguefischlin The electricity unit cost (cost per Kilowatt-Hour) may be high but there is no other technology that can satisfy the requirement to be clean (no CO2) and 100% available upon demand.

There are some significant errors in this video but it gets across an important point: how the true emissions of a product occur over its entire life. In engineering it is called life cycle analysis and is divided into three phases: Production Use Disposal To get a full picture of the emissions of a product we have to consider all phases.. not just the use phase

@oerthling Many good points. Thank you.

That is correct. And not at all new. This has been known and calculated for years. Also this graph is obviously wrong. It plots a line based on CO2 content for kw over time as linear. But the clean energy component is rising in developed countries, thus the CO2 per kw is less every year, thus it is a downward curve over the lifetime of the vehicle, not a straight line. Those lifetime calculations have been done and EVs are already winning after a few years - with current tech. In addition, how does he think we get to that future improved battery? By massive investment and R&D and iterating on production processes. The current tech and increasing adoption is the exact way we get to even better batteries and more flexible/cheaper/less problematic materials. Cobalt use per battery unit is already lower than it used to be a decade ago. We can't stop doing that and expecting that improved batteries and production processes magically spring from nowhere in a couple of decades. Battery production and capacity has massively improved over the kast 2 decades *because* they got used in increasing numbers. And hybrids were an interim solution with no future. One advantage of EVs over ICE cars is that they have less parts that need production, maintenance and replacement. With hybrids you need both techs - that is worse than either when it comes to maintenance and repair. That age is already over.

@Pooter Bilbo So it's a valuable lesson & we're ignoring the fact that it just happens to be gotten across by lying about it & completely distorting the relationship between...well everything & everything else?

If they really cared about the environment they would legislate a minimum of at least 10years durability on all consumer products

INDEED

A bus company I work at recently bought a few electric buses in a push to eventually convert our entire fleet to electric. They were brainwashed by all the circulating EV propaganda. We just found out the true range on these buses was about 130 miles, not nearly enough to run these vehicles in full service. Pretty depressing realizing you just wasn't about 4 million to "go green."

Our energy source will always be chosen by politicians instead of engineers. This will always result in a very few people seeing large benefit while most others pay the price. Don't think so? Research corn produced ethanol, the massive energy it takes to produce, its required use, and the people that benefit from this.

Please do an expanded version of this talking about the batteries, what it take to produce them, there life span, and what happens to them when they have reached the end of their efficient life span.

@Dean Murray nor the vast amount of earth dug up to harvest rare earth minerals nir the devestation mining has caused the world over. In BC, Canada, companies have left 1800 abandoned mines yet to be cleaned up or reclaimed. Imagine what the, same abandonment looks like in 2nd and 3rd world countries.

I had a hard stop, when he claimed that CO2 from a horse is cyclic, but from a car or power plant it isn't. It is the same CO2... The horse provides more greenhouse gases than plain CO2

@Glenn Cordova Again, so we are told, but there is no actual battery recycling facility operating yet and industry estimates are as low as 5% recyclable to Tesla stating 92% recyclable. Right now, batteries are being stored and to recycle one costs $6750 says Tesla. The concerning issue is that far more batteries are nearing a life end and stored or discarded than actuall being recycled now. Storing is the current solution but Lithium batteries are toxic if they leak and are extremely flammable! Like most things human designed, the race to earn profit was the focus, not designing the end of life strategy!

@pedraw I never said batteries would ever be fully green but if the product is improved in some way so that they last for longer it would make the product greener. Do you not agree? I think you miss understood my previous reply with regard to warranties.

@David Seaton I don't think a warranty makes a product "green". it just makes it replaceable with another product just like it.

I would push the button. Some of the key information in this two-year old talk has been discredited in terms of lifecycle emissions. The talk about CO2 does not also take into account that burning pretty much anything in an ICE will continue to emit NoX at the point of use, a toxic emission that is becoming better understood for its devastating health penalty. Graham Conway talks about decades ahead, yet Climatology strongly states that we do not have decades to play about with. Any wiggle room we had back then has been used up by the Oil industry's decades-long campaign of disinformation, slowing down the change processes that should have commenced long ago. Pass me that damned button, now.

@Sixgunner dot org Yes. But not pressing it 30 years ago has ensured that we get exactly that. And we have no control of what is now going to happen.

Pressing that button would result in worldwide chaos.

Hey Jason; big companies used to like to make cars that last a long time; I had a 1971 Porsche 911T with 1 million + miles I gave to my nephew; finally needs a rebuild; I still have a 1961 Volvo P1800 and Opel Gt all are over 50 years old. People ought to want to have solid vehicles that last; and you could still ride share and save real CO2 rather than talk about it.

There's a corporate capitalism prob. Veritasium "Why We Can't Have Nice Things".

This is interesting ! And something I have believed for years ! Also the elimination of Forrest through out the World adds to Co2 levels ! He didn't mention that.

As a Corvette owner, I am glad to learn it is as eco friendly as a horse.

@tenfeetup Yes it is, CO2 is CO2 and plants will use that portion of a car's exhaust. The won't use unburned HC or nitrogen oxides, though.

It is far LESS eco friendly than a horse because the CO2 coming out of your Corvette is not in a renewable cycle with plants the way that a horse is. Did you not listen to the full Ted Talk??✌️

@dubious distinction About what exactly?

@Devil's Offspring u are absolutely certifiably mad

@Miguel Rosario British car engines are in general smaller CC than the USA average car engine. British cars have for many, many years been getting 40-50 MPG as an average with many getting much more. Not so in the USA. That in itself is a sad state of affairs. They have the capacity to make the ICE more efficient in the USA but they are not doing it, for some reason. Maybe it's because the oil companies are in certain pockets, who knows. If they did choose to improve the efficiency of the USA ICE then everything would improve and all these numbers would again change, for the better.

I'm in the renewable energy field and even that needs to be looked at. During construction and operation of a wind or solar farm, thousands of gallons of diesel are burned every day, not to mention the environmental impacts on tree clearing on a large scale. Plus the life cycle of wind turbines is usually 20-30 years and large components arrive on ships (which burn 2000 gal of heavy diesel per hour) and major components like the blades end up in landfills when the site is repowered as they are not recyclable. Nuclear is the best thing we have so far.

On clear treeing: this is America have you seen our cities? You want trees move to Europe. On fossil fuels debate end the fossil due subsidies and watch diesel usage go way down. Yes green gets subsidies 20% of all energy subsidies goes to green. 70% goes to oil.

@Dennis Feeney Mass transit in the vast majority of the country - where people commute?

@1983jakesan one spin of wind turbine is enough to power a home for a day ( the better ones now a dayes 2homes

@Gavin BIDDISCOMBE I've never seen someone more wrong about nuclear energy. Go look up hiw modern nuclear power generation actually works and unless you're just being a crazy contrarian you'll see how incredibly efficient, safe and clean it actually is. It is the best solution with the technology we possess at this time.

One more thing. Conventional vehicles require an oil change every 3-6000 miles. Very few consumers are willing to accept the use of recycle oil for that. That ought to be factored in, but I don’t have the tools to do the analysis. Would like to see it, though.

Vehicle oil is 100% recycled. Check

They have the ability to create oil less engines ( not completely oil less but one that uses super thin oil that lasts for many months)but they don't want to because car oil is a multi billion industry

1) Fuel price. 2) Hydro electricity. 3) Newer batteries. 4) POLLUTION.

Two other considerations come to mind... 1) Here in the USA, the power grid already struggles when everyone wants to turn on their air conditioners at the same time during a heat wave. Can you imagine the mess when _everyone_ is charging their electric cars? 2) What about junked cars? How much worse for the environment, and how much more of a safe disposal issue will it be, when all those electric cars with ginormous batteries owned by _everyone_ start going to the scrap heap?

@Kurses and Karma Yes... during the day (Florida). When most EVs aren't charging. The ones that do charge during the day can take their power from the electricity that would have otherwise been used to refine and deliver gasoline. Again... check with your utility and ask what the demand is during the day vs during the night. We can sit here and imagine all sorts of scenarios, but the only one that matters is what actually happens.

@chubstheclown But then calculate the need for heat in the N.E. when it's winter and the furnaces and heat pumps pulling power from the grid. During the day, swimming pool pumps are running daily in FL, regardless whether its cold or hot.

@Kurses and Karma That is true for you and some others, but "all over the USA" is a bit of a stretch. And even in areas where this is needed, the draw from AC is much lower at night than it is while the sun is beating down. Of course, this question can only be answered by contacting your utility and asking them what the demand is during the day vs during the night.

@chubstheclown I live in the Southern U.S. We have to run our A/C at night. Summer is summer and the A/C will be run all over the U.S., regardless.

@Jewell Johnson but a fair majority of us charge at home starting around the time Rush hour is tapering off.

Great talk and info. It's important to keep in mind that we (the global community) are currently spending millions on battery tech research. Every day we get closer to a better for the environment and cheaper to produce battery.

@ForbiddTV Wrong, battery technology has progressed immensely. Lithium ion batteries have nothing in common except the name battery with those lead acid batteries. Just to compare, a 100 Ah starter battery has 1,2 kWh of charge, contains around 30kg of lead which is rarer than lithium in the earths crust and overall weight is 45kg. So let's scale that to a typical EV battery at 70 kWh, that's 58 times the energy on 400-500 kg of overall weight of which 11.2 kg is lithium. the lead battery would weigh 2.6 tonnes, contain 1740kg of lead and would have 3 times the volume... A lithium battery could hold 9 times the charge but it's chemistry is too volatile for the use in a car. A current EV battery holds only that fraction because the chemistry buys us safety from dangers like internal short circuits - which is why current EV are 44 times less likely to catch fire. Just that every EV on fire makes it into international news, if the same happened with ICE cars then there would be globally distributed news from the US every 3.5 minutes (which is the rate that somewhere in the US statistically an ICE car starts to burn in an unintended way...

You have been saying that for decades, and yet we aren't much farther than the 100+ year old lead acid battery. You must be the same guy that has been telling me for all my 60 years that nuclear fusion is just around the corner.

A coal plant is roughly 60% more efficient than a vehicle at turning the raw material into useable energy. He is skewing the numbers. A coal plant, in all it's massive size, is of course more efficient at creating energy than every little car on the road. Yes, it is less negative on the environment to charge vehicles on the grid than it is to use gasoline. A tad disingenuous, this one. He also included the emissions for creating the electric vehicle and supply it with energy without including the emissions for drilling for oil and transporting and refining all of that too. This is one of the worst TedTalks I have ever seen. Usually they are great and make you think, this one, I don't believe the "orator" even put real thought into it.

The future is eclectic. Agreed 100% We all have different driving needs, sometimes one type of shoe just doesn't fit for everything.

@J4Zonian 1/2 way through, will require multiple reads, quite interesting, and learning a lot. Thanks!

@tim dryden "Correcting Anti-Renewable Energy Propaganda" cleantechnica 2/9/2020

@J4Zonian ICE cars will never be gone. Even when the last lithium deposit is mined out, ICE cars will still be running all over the world.

@J4Zonian No time soon. Reuters>"Less than 1% of the 250 million cars, SUVs and light-duty trucks on the road in the United States are electric". ---AND are over stressing the grid, as people are being asked to not charge their ev's during peak demand.

Graham Conway works for the Southwest Research Institute, which was founded by oil businessman Tom Slick.

Definitely! These arguments always have one fundamental flaw … they leave out the entirety of what it takes to produce oil. If you’re going to “expand” the box around electric vehicles, you’ll also need to around ICE vehicles and include the defense budgets to secure the oil fields, transportation costs, refinement costs, environmental disaster costs, etc.

@Robert White An EV does not need any rare earth elements - contrary to the ICE which couldn't exist without...

He also works for Automotive Division at Southwest Research Institute; they work on engines a LOT. So, the more he can convince people to use ICE or hybrids, the more money they make. His graph also shows a few bad things. For EV's he uses the least efficient ones. For the ICE, he uses the most efficient ones, and for the hybrids he also uses the most efficient ones. None are the "average" as he said. The conventional would be MUCH higher in emissions if he used the average and the electric would be lower. I wouldn't trust an actor, especially when the description also says; "NOTE FROM TED: This talk only reflects the speaker's personal views and interpretation. Several claims in this talk lack scientific support. We've flagged this talk because it falls outside the content guidelines TED gives TEDx organizers. "

@Robert White sorry, but modern battery packs have a life expectancy much longer than any combustion engine! Early ones had their problems, but that is a thing of the past!

Pretty sure that you could replace oil fields with the rare earth mines that would be needed, which would have their own ecological problems, bottom line you would still need all those for electric cars. Also battery packs do not have a great   Lifespan compared to combustion,major problem which would seem to increase ev overall co2

Excellent remark!

A good analysis, but surprisingly he missed the amount of CO2 emitted in mining rare earth elements for solar panels and wind turbines, not to mention they contain massive amounts of processed petroleum products we often refer to as plastics.

@Kurses and Karma sure, but we need to switch over to a renewable economy quickly first.

@Stephen Lee True. We must not forget the mining and pollution we emit when extracting and excavating for these minerals as well.

@Kurses and Karma it's legitimate to be concerned about the end of life activities of solar and batteries. Currently, yes, a lot of them are being shoved into a landfill because it's cheaper to do it that way.. when has the human race ever done the right thing when it costed more /s? But there are companies out there looking at the projected growth of the amount of EV waste and looking to make a buck by recycling them. Let's not forget. There are a lot of variable minerals and metals involved in the construction of a solar panel such as the silicon and silver elements. Those are still worth a lot of money by mass/weight. It's just a matter of getting enough infrastructure set up so that you can process these solar panels at scale and make a profit. Same idea with the batteries.

@Stephen Lee and @Gord Cross, How can you recycle battery cells from EV's and solar panels? From my novice understanding, all rechargeable batteries will max out. They too will have a shelf life. Can anyone chime in here and tell me how toxic are they to dispose of in a landfill? If not in a landfill, then where is the final resting place? So now we'll have solar panels & their batteries, and EV batteries to dispose of. It appears to me that no one is talking about the mass amounts of waste from this sector that is going to have to be addressed in the future. I'm not here to argue, just looking to learn.

Would increased co2 result in greater plant health? When comparing the horse to the automobile, the cycle has been completed by plants consuming co2. What happened to the plants when looking at the cycle of the EV or Internal combustion vehicle?

No, generally, existing plants wont dynamically adapt to an increase in CO2 and begin to flourish, (some have been genetically modified to absorb more CO2 than it naturally would otherwise, but would have zero impact on this scale, for plants, its a slow evolution for them to adapt to their atmosphere.............

Exactly ... sleight of hand there. Let's be honest.

References please. Especially for the CO2 requirements for vehicle and Battery Pack construction.

​@Si Milner what exactly is your point? The energy it takes to create a single solar panel is paid back by the panel in the first 1 to 4 years of its own power generation. Most solar panels last at least 25 years, so that's 21 to 24 years of additional power generation that each panel gives back, which, I'm gonna wager, also pays many times over for the energy required to mine the raw materials for creating solar cells. And this all assumes that the mining and manufacturing equipment for making panels is not already powered by renewable energy, which we can expect to be the case in the future. With oil there is zero return of the CO2 that's emitted to drill, refine, and ship it. And then there's oil spills that have devastating consequences to ecosystems and the environment -- this also needs to be factored into the equation. As for the depreciation of manufacturing and mining equipment -- that's not a unique problem with solar; you can ask the same question about most industries. What happens when the machinery used to drill and refine oil degrades? What about the depreciation of the millions of oil shipping trucks? Gas pumps and gas stations?

@Si Milner Luckily we have oil and coal, which require no mining or manufacture, and fossil fuel fired power plants which require no maintenance, and never degrade.

and then there's the total energy output required to mine, manufacture and maintain solar and wind farms.. not to mention what happens to these sources when they all degrade..

@MC yes! And the environmental damage of oil spills.

But before references he needs to talk about the CO2 created of drilling oil, transporting it, refining it, and transporting it again.

Great discussion of this issue. I have been saying for years that hybrid is the solution for now and the foreseeable future, although I could never explain it this well. Thanks.

@Timothy Keith Define fast charging. In the scientific community fast charging starts off at 6C, which is the charging rate at which the lifecycles of new batteries is tested in the laboratory. A 100kWh battery that charges at 6C would require a 600kW fast charger (these are being defined for lorries at the moment, but their batteries are bigger still, so the 600kW charging speed would equate to about 2-3C)... An active battery management like in current EV can prevent charging degradation for the most part. What really is detrimental is letting the battery drain fully or have it rest at 100% for extended periods of time...

@Andrew Currin I agree, fast charging that does not degrade the battery is sufficient - but not possible in 2022

@karl patterson You couldn't explain it because there was no explanation then & there's none now. The assertions in the video are false, the assumptions are wrong, & the reasoning is faulty. Hybrids perpetuate fossil fuel use, create more inevitably-stranded assets, pile more carbon into the air, take the focus off the real solutions. The Brits canceled their hybrid subsidy after a study found people mostly weren't recharging them, just using them as ICEVs. BEVs are crucial, but by far the most important transit solutions are staying put, walking, bicycling, & public transit including a state of the art national/international high speed rail network to replace flying & long-distance driving, well-anchored in regional & local transit systems.

personally im still waiting for a good explanation, who need to drive 400 miles on a charge, lol

Need whole lot more studies on hydragene fuel cells to power all engines

Why can the future not be magnetic? There are forces not properly explored which could be an option. The trouble with ALL electric isn't the cars themselves as such. It's the fact we currently don't have the power grid setup anywhere on the planet to support them. Please don't forget to note that the pollution caused by all petrol and fossil fuel vehicles in the world, is less than 4%. Look at the major contributors and look at reducing and fixing those areas before focusing as always with an onus on the end user. You got it, not Ionly do we require more power stations we need stations that reduce emissions for the long haul

In 2004, my company asked me if I wanted to work from home and I said yes. Telecommuters work longer hours, have great quality and goof off less. That is being green. I have saved over 30,000 in fuel.

You may make a living pecking on a keypad, and if so my hat's off to ya, but that doesn't make it "work"

@Fares Hajjar are you in management? My guess is you are. Numerous studies out say just the opposite.

yup. I keep telling my customers the same thing- but the conversation goes something like this: "my toilet is clogged- can you come out & fix it." (me) well, do you have a ridgid power snake? I can tell you how to UNCLOG it over the phone. the call will only cost you $1 a minute. "...... click... DIALTONE".

You’re welcome

I repair trucks for a living. I think my neighbors would have some thing to say if I worked from home in this small avenue.

A couple of things that were left out of your calculations… using your gasoline engine cycle, the plants are still involved in that calculation, as it was with the horse analogy. The difference is, the oxygen is used by human and other animals on the planet. Currently CO2 is about 400-600 parts per million in the atmosphere and the idea level for plants would be 800 ppm. Thousands of years ago, it dropped to about 180 ppm and plants would all die off at about 150 ppm. So having lower CO2 levels isn’t always as good as climate change proponents would like us to believe. Also, with higher CO2 levels, plants continue to thrive, using more CO2, which produces more O2. Also, higher global temperatures on average also means more places will have an easier time growing crops for food where previously difficult. The second way electric batteries impact on the planet is the amount of mining required to get all the minerals from the ground to make these batteries. As well, the recycling of the batteries is not as good as a typical gasoline car battery (most of common batteries are recyclable where as lithium ion batteries are very costly and require a lot of energy to recycle).

The problem is the earth isn't a plant planet anymore it used to be in the beginning but unfortunately is populated be humans now. And humans don't like the climate change and it's devastating effects like we are experiencing more and more often.

On a personal level this has always been the issue .

so plants can tell the difference between CO2 from a horse and CO2 from a Corvette? He is right but has flaws as well. The whole package needs to be considered. He also missed the portion that the battery does not last much more than 100,000 miles. I would like to see the analysis of the CO2 generated in creating a wind generator vs the energy produced. The amount of aluminum, steel and graphite is amazing. also the loss of land vs the loss of plants to generate O2 is a problem. the Blades on the wind generators only last a short time but the damage to the land is permanent.

Nice presentation it was pretty informative

I feel like oil changes should also be calculated into a gas vehicles emissions plus transporting fuel to gas stations, building semis and tankers to transport said fuel as well as ships 🚢 that transport oil, all the drilling equipment for the extraction of oil. Plus producing the vast amount of different parts internal combustion engines need and the transportation of those parts. Plus mining, transporting, producing, shipping, digging and maintaining pipelines for transporting fuels and oils across vast distances needs to be calculated. I can just keep going on and on. All aspects of electric vehicle production needs to be calculated as well and I can say for sure I’d be very interested in seeing properly researched and calculated results.

@Sportster06 Because the evidence proves them wrong? No, wait, that couldn't be it... surely they're not being ........ dishonest!

Yes, there is a lot of information left out. All of the petro options also apply to e vehicles as well. Mining copper, mining lithium, mining so many other rare earth materials. The end result should be viewed closely. The petro goes to the recycler and the ecar goes to the hazardous waste site to be stored for eternity. Sadly no clear silver lining to be found yet.

@Jeff Hunt do your own research. Why do deniers always need to ask for evidence when they can actually find the truth themselves.

@Sportster06 the problem is the sun doesn't stay out 24/7/365. That means you're still going to need storage, which means batteries. Tell me, just how enviromentaly freindly are batteries?

@Jeff Hunt ever heard of a company called Rio Tinto? How about Fortescue Metals or BHP? Big miners with the biggest mines running the biggest equipment. All moving ahead with their own solar arrays to transition or heavily reduce the massive CO2 footprints they have to mine ore. Haul Packs, shovels and trains running on Electricity. The mines are in Western Australia and guess what, the sun is vicious, relentless and powerful. Indonesia and Japan want to run cables from the top of Australia to pump the renewable energy over for themselves. It’s all happening while people sit around and still try to argue it won’t work or it can’t be done. It does work and it’s happening.

He omits consideration of a major factor in the equation to reach his conclusion about hybrid vehicles - REPAIR COSTS. With higher technology dependant electric vehicles there are electronic components that need updates. With internal combustion engines there are mechanical parts that wear out and need replacement. A hybrid vehicle has BOTH, so it seems there are twice as many opportunities for system component failures. There may be even more failure links in the combustion/electric integration system (getting them both to work seamlessly together). For the average person, minimizing personal vehicle repair costs is a major consideration in the vehicle purchase calculation.

This is just flat out wrong. There is no additional failure links in hybrid. In fact, the worst part about BEVs is having 1000+ lbs of battery. Smaller batteries are better and easier to replace on a cellular level. You can drastically reduce the necessary batteries with an accompanying ICE in the car. Not to mention the lithium fires will become less likely to occur and less explosive the smaller the batteries you use. If anything, you can even continue to use nickel batteries, and not need to starve the poor of water in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile just to mine their lithium

I drive a hybrid. Since both systems operate at different times there is less wear on each, for example I just changed the small battery after seven years of use which is double the life of a regular battery.

Don’t forget to expand that box around fossil fuel vehicles to include downstream refining and fuel transportation, midstream pipelines transit, upstream production, and finally drilling exploration.

@Craig Anthony and RJ45 connectors aren’t actually RJ45. They are 8P8C connectors. It’s just too frivolous to debate such a widely used term over such a small and questionable technicality.

@Craig Anthony sorry but couldn’t resist : fuel is fossil by essence :) (Yes fuel is transformed, so not fossil anymore, if this is what you meant)

@Benergy that’s why in the ME there is so much oil as well.

@Craig Anthony I’ve personally examined microscopic fossils while drilling into formations. It’s used to determine the epoch through stratigraphic super-positioning. Any remains of plant or animal, including their carbohydrates that formed kerogen that was later cracked into crude oil and gas are still fossils. Most of it came from algae in warm anoxic oceans.

There’s no such thing as “fossil fuel.” Peace. Out.

I think most people understand that EVs are not zero pollution. That little zero emission insignia is a marketing gimmick. I sometimes think people expect something "new" to be perfect or else it is worse than something else, especially something they are used to. In this talk he used global electricity production which is useful as a whole, but does not reflect what is going on in many countries. In the US for example, coal is used to generate about 20% of the electricity, natural gas about 40%, natural gas contributes half as much co2 as coal for the same electricity generation, and that's not counting the release of co2 during extraction, where once again coal produces much more simply by the nature of how it is mined. Here is where it gets interesting, even gasoline is cleaner than coal, so how can an EV powered by coal be cleaner than a ICE car, the answer is that an ICE car is only about 20% efficient at converting that gasoline into energy where as a coal power plant is double that efficiency in turning coal into electricity. Even so coal is not an ideal source of energy compared to other sources other than the fact that it is very abundant which is no small thing. So moving away from coal changes the curve dramatically even if other fossil fuels are used to create electricity. Unfortunately, until China, which uses half of all the coal worldwide, goes to other sources of electricity production it may be difficult to make much of a dent in global co2 emissions. I am not an engineer or scientist, this is just something I think about as I read, so I welcome any corrections in my train of thought.

I find it kind've scary that most people did'nt and still do not have enough common sense to look at the process of how electric vehicles are made and if the outcome is worth the process..... That kind've thinking is simply independent thinking

I absolutely agree that the energy / pollution / CO2 equation for electric vehicles has to include the source of the energy that powers the vehicle. What I didn't hear you say is that the same should be done for fuel burning vehicles. The petrol (gasoline) or diesel fuel you put into your car didn't magically appear in the tanks of the gas station. The energy costs, pollution and emissions of oil exploration, oil well construction, pipeline construction, pumping, shipping, refining, road transport etc all have to be added to the emissions "produced" by your Internal Combustion car, in the same way you ask that the emissions from power stations should be added to the electric vehicles' emissions. Also, if you want to point out (correctly) that in many parts of the world, electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, then you also have to consider that there is a lot of electricity inherent in each gallon of gasoline or diesel. Research the electricity consumption of oil refineries (absolutely huge), realise that liquid fuels are often pumped with electrically powered pumps etc. One university study concluded that the amount of electricity inherent in a gallon of gasoline would drive an electric car at least half the distance that the liquid fuel would drive an internal combustion car. So yes, look at the whole picture for electric vehicles, but also look at the whole picture for internal combustion cars, hydrogen cars and all alternatives. I drive (and love) an electric car, but I have solar panels and live in New Zealand where over 80% of our electricity comes from renewable resources, especially at night when the vast majority of electric cars are charged.

Correct! This is why one should not watch TED talks.

@dionysusnow Or wars for the materials to make those expensive batteries.

@William Rees You mean studies written by EV industry reps?

@dionysusnow More than $7 trillion since 2000, (everything considered, more like 10+) more than enough to upgrade the grid & replace all the fossil fuels the US uses with efficiency, wiser lives, & clean safe fast cheap reliable renewable energy, build a national state of the art high speed rail network hooked into local & regional transit systems, & do lots more of what's needed to prevent catastrophe.

It isn't a clever shift of responsibility from the auto manufacturer. It's a clear way to solve a problem. It's funny that he dives deep into the analysis on all levels but doesn't trace the reality that shifting away from coal and oil are easier to do top down than 1 BILLION cars from the bottom up. It's funny that the battery has been demonized without perspective of how ALL TECHNOLOGY progresses. By the same logic, all of the people who respond to this on their cell phones wouldn't be able to because computers have to be the size of a room and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single mainframe. The battery wasn't allowed to evolve due to being stamped down by fossil fuel and auto interests. It has yet to hit a stride because of being craftly deincentivized. The logic is flawed and a direct result of the indoctrination of industries that have had a stranglehold on affairs GLOBALLY.

Has anyone done a comparison of all fossil fueld vehicles to show which is the cleanest.other than hybrids? Maybe its time to put lead back in petrl as it was always found close to the tarmac and was better for the enviro than the junk they replaced it with.

Very compelling argument. The real solution is for a considerable amount of people to not own cars anymore rather than replacing their old car with a new one. Redesign city public transport. Individuals rethink their work / accomodation arrangement. Companies redesign their operations to not involve small vehicle use.

agree totally. Just go by push bike or just find accommodation close to work or study. It will be much more relaxed as well.

Great presentation and an excellent factual look at electric vehicles. However, what about the energy spent manufacturing windmills and solar panels? Even with renewable energy, it will never be zero emissions. And if you rely on wind and solar to generate power to charge your car, I hope the nurse, doctors, and everyone else working night shift can get to work and back on a single charge.

@winston adair hybrid...it's all a wash. They still have to extract fossil fuels to make all the plastics, heat and form the metals. I've driven a hybrid and they're not as efficient as people make them seem

Go the hybred way

Didn't see any consideration of the C02 cost of retrieving, refining and transporting the fuel for normal ICE vehicles? Having worked in the marine Oil industry, I can tell you that's a fair amount to take into consideration. There is also the consideration of generating electricity on large scale vs small scale usage of fuel. I live and work in Norway, where all electric power is generated from hydro electric sources (so that flattens out the graph for electric cars quite drastically, cutting down the CO2 crossover point with ICE cars to somewhere between 2 to 4 years of usage) - which I know is a luxury situation (Norway has over half of Europe's hydro capacity I believe) The gas and oil produced in this country is mainly exported to other countries for them to burn ;-), with the exception of the fuel refined for all forms of transport (road vehicles, air transport and shipping) - although a lot of money and energy has recently been put into coming up with a gas power plant with CO2 scrubbers. My personal opinion is that the electric motor is the way to go for small vehicles, but batteries are maybe not the power source we should be using. Hydrogen is the fuel that should be the focus, but unfortunately the current ways of utilising it are expensive to manufacture, require elaborate storage solutions and quantities of rare metals in the fuel cells (which hinders mass production). Battery technology is currently advancing at a healthy rate, so I don't see hydrogen tech attracting the necessary big bucks (until a 'eureka' breakthrough happens in any case). Most renewable sources of energy that are being invested in are also intermittent sources (solar, wind) which will only be effective when combined with an energy storage solution (which in most cases is looking like battery storage at the moment). I personally don't understand why more money isn't being put into geothermal and infra red energy harvesting, as these both have the potential to provide a constant stream of energy 24/7

@Tranquil thoughts There are two ways to factor this. It can either be a 400 mile battery or he could have factored in charging it 3.2 times. He chose the former. Either way, any effort to compare apples to apples would have to have some sort of comparison there. Also, as he stated, we want vehicles with more miles than that. I live in Remote Alaska...if I were to every even THINK of the possibility of an electric car, it would have to have a MUCH greater range than 125 miles. I'd assume that what the reason he went with the 400 mile battery - because to get EVs to become mainstream, that would be a requirement.

@J B That would be an exhaustive study! I don't think it would be possible. Especially when you factor everything that Oil, and its byproducts, are in. Oil is in everything from the roads you drive on, to the clothes you wear, to the computer you use, to the food you eat and the medicines you take. It is literally everywhere. Not to mention, the only pockets deep enough to fund such a survey probably wouldn't want the full/true answers anyway...they like to get just enough info that they can skew it their way, yet leave enough out that people like us are always saying "yea but....".

Applaud Norway for their 90% electricity from HydroPower. Norway has 5.4 million people. US is third largest producer of hydropower in the World. Current expansion at least in USA will need to come from more efficient hydro generators as environmental groups will pretty much shut down any new ideas for dams to generate more. In fact they are trying to take one offline on the Colorado.

You do know we still need the other parts of crude oil for the plastic and chemical industry. Drilling for crude will continue as it is the most valuable resource on the planet regardless if we use it for fuel or not.

Appreciate you sharing your wealth of knowledge on the subject.

One point on his calculations - Tesla is giving an 8 year / 120K mile battery warranty on its new autos. One could assume that the ~ $20K replacement that is based on "typical" usage is the calculated point of replacement. Having said that any L-ION Battery based product would at least create actual cost of ownership of say 33% percent more CO2 tonnage based on the average salvage life given of 180K Miles. All this simply to store energy created from another source. This is not critique but furthers his point. The reality is that society has a mindset of individual transport at will. We go where we want when we want. I suggest that what would have the greatest sustainability is mass transit or maybe a distributed transit system, at least with the technology of today.

Anyone who has thought about this subject realizes that we need better batteries, and electricity generated by the sun (etc.), to make electric vehicles work. He has told us nothing new. We need to redirect fossil fuel industry subsides (and more) into doing the necessary development... new generation batteries, new solar plants and new electric vehicles can be produced concurrently. We don't have to wait. We do have to have the will...

One other thing, how much fuel and CO2 output does it take to transport the fuel from the oil fields to the gas pump? Pumping oil out of the ground, transporting it to the refinery..., fuel used by the refinery..., transporting the fuel to the gas station... all emit CO2

@Benergy Once the traditional oil wells run dry the so called unconventional sources will result in significant increase of this factor. Tar sand extraction will yield a factor of about 2.5, arctic deposit exploitation a factor of 3.5... Traditional oil wells will expire within the lifetime of an ICE bought new today...

Multiply your CO2 at the tailpipe by 1.25, as a general rule.

Nuclear + electric vehicles = SUCCESS

This always seems like a taboo, but what about investing in nuclear energy? Wind and solar are great, but they require an exponential amount of land conversion to generate the same amount of energy as a nuclear power plant. They also require some rare earth materials (particularly solar) and they don't last as long as other power plants. I know nuclear is scary because of Chernobyl and Fukushima, but I think it's time for us to have serious discussion about this form of energy.

@seguefischlin interesting. I have watched a couple other TED talks where the speakers made it seem like nuclear was the clear way to go. One speaker even addressed concerns on waste disposal and was convincing enough to me that it seemed safe and sustainable if handled properly.

I used to do massage fulltime. One of my clients was a nuclear engineer for 25 years. I asked him why he got out of the industry. He replied: 'There's no future in nuclear energy.' When asked to elaborate, it seemed that it comes down to the extreme costs around safety and longterm problems of managing such a dangerous medium before during and after. If you look at France, who is mostly run on nuclear, their electricity rates per kWh are some of the highest in Europe. Also, their power plants are aging (some are nearing 50 yrs old) and they haven't even begun to have to deal with decommissioning/upgrading existing plants yet. So, to summarize, France has some of the highest electricity costs currently and haven't even begun to shoulder the real costs yet of nuclear power.

@Kevin Johannes I haven't done a ton of research, but from what I have seen/read, nuclear waste isn't really that difficult to safely deal with. And it goes inert after a certain number of years, so it's not something that destroys or pollutes the earth forever and ever. I just think we are simply too afraid of it because of the very few, but catastrophic nonetheless, incidents that have happened AND big oil/coal/natural gas continue to lobby governments to keep themselves in business.

One problem is this discussion we always have when introducing "the solution to our problems": Q: "Do we know if this new product will cause harm to the earth in the future?" A: "No. We will have nuclear waste. It's dangerous and we don't know what to do with it exactly except store it for the next few years." Q: "Do we care?" A: "No, let's go!"

@Robert Marmaduke very interesting. I'm not surprised it costs more to build in the US, but that does seem extreme. I'm also curious as to why China would still invest in coal power if they can do nuclear... Especially considering how overcrowded and polluted their cities already are.

Unless I'm mistaken, this thesis assumes that the production of EVs relies on fossil fuel power grids (ie. coal). What about power grids based on renewable energy, namely hydro?

hydro power has it's own issues. Environmental damage for dams and reservoirs can be very extensive, wrecking water based lands and species. Also, we are drying out so the availability of water is an issues. That's why CA started to look at taking used water from OR & WA at one point. And wind turbines can be environmentally problematic also, decimating bird populations. We need to look a multiple answers for world size issues. Solar power generation in sunny areas, wind power in low bird population areas, as well as fission (and hopefully fusion in the future w/good signs from the tokamak reactor in Oxford) in low population areas may be key.

What a crock. A modern EV should be able to run for 400,000 miles and batteries have improved. So I believe they are already a winner in terms of CO2 production over their lifetime and required range. Not only that they don't dump pollutants into our crowded cities like gas and hybrid cars do, that is a huge win. ICE engines have indeed reached the end of development, there is unlikely to be further gains in efficiency or emissions production to be made. Anyway, who cares about all that climate change stuff, that is no fun. But EVs perform better than ICE cars. That is fun. So just say no to hybrids, they have little benefit and only hold up development of EVs whilst dragging their ICE motors around like boat anchors.

In 2021, 99% of Arizona's total electricity net generation was provided from 6 sources: natural gas (43%); nuclear power (28%); coal (13%); solar energy (9%); hydroelectric power (5%): and wind (1%

Nuclear power is our only realistic means of meeting our energy demands. The amount of acreage needed for wind farms and or solar fields would be massive, think in terms of hundreds of square miles. Hydro electric would help but not just from rivers, we need to harness the currents and tides of the ocean without impacting marine life as well. Hybrid technology is our only hope for the foreseeable future while fully electric vehicles are just a small component.

I find the most conventional form of transport is teleportation, but I'm from the future. Still uses energy though... controlled fushion particle

Every type of energy production has an environmental cost as well. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue renewable energy, but we need to be honest about the environmental and humanitarian costs of mining lithium for batteries, disposing of solar panels, establishing wind farms in migration paths, and so on. Renewable does not always mean green. We will go in the wrong direction sometimes but we must go. I just hope we can strive for equity and wisdom as we attempt to curb climate change and provide for the best possible future.

What comes from the tail pipe is not just CO2, many other toxic gasses, additionally he said not one word on the production of oil, the pollution, the transfer by oil rigs and massive boats, trucks etc. Like petrol and diesel fuel just appear magically in gas stations.

Thank you very much for listening. Please also give an applause to my sponsor Big Oil & Gas🤣 References please...

Windmills and solar panels also need to be manufactured and maintained, and the manufacturing and maintenance processes generate carbon dioxide. I continue to believe that all the major innovations will be on the demand side of the equation... UNLESS we choose nuclear which has been demonized as relentlessly as fossil fuels.

@Tony Stanley Comfort is just comfort;. I made it completely clear what I was talking about by using 3 related words for it; you're using the equivocation fallacy, ambiguity that creates confusion & doubt. It's a common tactic globally wealthy people use to relieve themselves of guilt over their narcissistic indulgence & outlandish consumption & destruction. I make the point about human impact over & over & over here & elsewhere. But it's not a question of just tweaking a few worst practices; we are massively overwhelming the biosphere & only a radical shift in our relationships will change enough of the impact to survive. That will take recognition that our problems are all caused by psychological conditions, & an intervention by a combination of peaceful direct action, education, & conventional psychotherapy. That will take a long time; we need to buy that time by solving the GHG crisis before civilization collapses. In the 1930s FDR did that for the US, but it was incomplete, & the seeds of the current crisis were sewn by rich white conservatives & the formation of the interwoven psycho-industrial complexes.

Windmills kill to many eagles

Talk about the efficiency loss when you burn fuel to create electrical energy and then take high voltage AC to low voltage DC to charge batteries. Major loss of energy.

Solar panels are made using petroleum in many ways. They have a large carbon footprint to be manufactured.

Overall, what he said is common sense to people who understand automobiles and technology. He misses the same point he made with the electric cars with going to renewable energy: batteries. You still need batteries to store said energy when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. That will cause even bigger C02 emissions and resource use when trying to produce batteries large enough to store that renewable energy and try to produce batteries for electric vehicles.

The problem with "renewable energy" sources is also something to take into consideration. Solar panels need replacing, and windmills need maintenance/repairs. This things do not come from "zero emission" sources either. So no, they aren't renewable because eventually we'll run out of resources to maintenance. I also want to add, the amount of clear space needed for "renewable energy" can severely limit housing and as well displace wild life or even harm wild life (Check how many birds are killed by windmills). We need to find REAL renewable energy sources, with zero to minimal emissions. Something that would be REALLY important until we find that, would be nuclear power, which has made a lot improvements. It's become safer, more long lasting, and even mostly recyclable. It's far less taxing on our environment, space wise and emission wise.

@C T Absolutely. There were several issues surrounding that disaster...none of them actually because of the dangers of the reaction itself. To list just a few: 1) Basically everything stems from this one - Due to the violent nature of Stalin's regime, no one was brave enough to report any issues, as it was likely to be perceived as a weakness on their part and they would probably "disappear". 2) They graphene tipped the rods - which helps with conductivity...basically making everything happen faster. 3) Chernobyl was undersized. So, instead of throttling with the correct methods, they would lift the insolating rods little by little until they got enough umph out of the reactor. For those reading this that may not know - that is exactly how you get a runaway reaction. You should NEVER remove, even slightly, an insolating rod...they are in place precisely to prevent the runaway. Combining the graphene tipping with their "throttling" method, and you're begging for a problem. There are plenty more issues, but that's enough for this lol

@MikeLifeCrisis Huh...Okay. As long as those numbers are correct and our biologists don't see a decline in numbers, then that makes perfect sense. You men have successfully changed someone's mind...and in a YT comments section no less! Mark it on the calendar, because these days that doesn't happen very often! lol Thanks for clearing that up for me.

@adam rushing It's more like a million birds killed every year by wind turbines in the US. But compare that to 200 million by vehicles, 800 million by windows, or 2.4 billion from cats, it's somewhat negligible.

@adam rushing thanks....can't really go for the wind option on my property. live in a crowded city.

Well said. We really need to think about how to do this and I do believe there are sound ways to this without all the ideological stuff currently associated with climate change technologies. Let's figure out how to truly science the heck out of this problem.

@Sfs 🤡

Don't you have the same misconception with renewable energy sources? How much CO2 does it take to make a fossil fuel power plant vs. a wind farm that can output the same amount of power?

Great talk and worth looking at for sure where most of the time we don't do that. It's like investigating a work place accident. One must go all the way up the top of the safety pyramid to get to root cause and only then can a conversation about what safety actions can be done.

Very thought provoking indeed. Enjoyably so...But...China, India and Russia wont be on board with any of this for a long long time..>50 years I imagine .So that is problematic.

We need more of those big machines that turn CO2 into something useful like wood.

@Rusty So that's one small forest. Better start planting then.

@jjhpor I worked at a lens factory. They did the calculations. It takes thousands of trees to keep up with a factory.

Trees, you mean. Yes, plant a tree.

I'd like to see him go into the carbon footprint of the production and lifespan of solar and wind powered sources. never mind the recyclability of them or lack of.

@J4Zonian the article is a non-starter. It fails to address the fact that solar and wind requires vast amounts of land to supply our energy needs and fails to address the fact that mining for rare earths is by far the dirtiest way to produce energy. It also fails to address the fact that over 80% of rare earths are resourced from Countries (specifically China) that are belligerent towards the US and our allies.

@Daniel Smith "Correcting Anti-Renewable Energy Propaganda" cleantechnica 2/9/2020

@J4ZonianActually "clean energy" is a misnomer. There's absolutely nothing clean about solar or wind energy. Mining for the necessary metals to manufature solar panels and modern wind turbines is by far the filthiest way to produce energy. Then there's the added fact that to produce enough energy to sustain even our current population vast amounts of farm land would have to be taken out of agricultural production which will only exacerbate the world's current food supply shortage and cause even higher inflation for agricultural products. Then there's the added fact that nearly 90% of all rare earths are mined in China or Russia with China being by far the largest supplier of rare earths, it isn't even a contest. Making our energy needs reliant upon the whims of adversarial governments could very easily be considered an act of treason under the Constitution especially when we have an vast supply of energy that can be produced domestically.

Whilst his points are mostly true in the U.S this is due to change as energy production sources change and this also isn't the same in other countries. Most owners of electric vehicles in Australia, charge their cars with solar power from their own roof tops. In these cases EVs are far better for the planet. There are several other facts not included in this presentation: EVs are responsible for considerably lower emissions over their lifetime than conventional (internal combustion engine) vehicles across Europe as a whole. However, as countries decarbonise electricity generation to meet their climate targets, driving emissions will fall for existing EVs and manufacturing emissions will fall for new EVs. In the UK in 2019, the lifetime emissions per kilometre of driving a Nissan Leaf EV were about three times lower than for the average conventional car, even before accounting for the falling carbon intensity of electricity generation during the car’s lifetime. Comparisons between electric vehicles and conventional vehicles are complex. They depend on the size of the vehicles, the accuracy of the fuel-economy estimates used, how electricity emissions are calculated, what driving patterns are assumed, and even the weather in regions where the vehicles are used. There is no single estimate that applies everywhere.