Thanks to MANSCAPED for sponsoring today's video! Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping with promo code "AEJC" at manscaped.com/autoexpert ! #FathersDay
Sorry, you can do it again cause it is completely wrong based on our research cent KIT and Munich University who had done that already multiple times. AND bad for australia: It will not take that long till the amount of lithium will have been pulled out of the earth and the recycling figure from the german recycling industry are over 93% are recycled and used again, not down cycled. Lithium will be reused on the material level so looks quite good cause we have already used one lfp for over 10 years and now when it should have gone into the recycling the university wants to get the cells to do further investigations and cycling cause that battery should be testet how long that outdated model could last beyonf those 2750 cycles we had used it before. 2 7 5 0 is an equivalent (based on a 60 kWh of 2750 x 400 km = 1.100.000 km I guess that even the old mercedes did not get close to that - at least those robust model from the 80s like the taxis W123 and W124.
John, I always find your videos insightful and informative. However on this one you don’t seem to have been even handed in your analysis. Regarding the ICE vehicle you haven’t included the emissions relating to the exploration, extraction, refining, transportation and delivery of fuel (filling station) to the Mazda 2 to enable a true comparison.
Things to also consider, the EV battery will be fairly worn after 10 years and battery replacement incurs another hit of co2 penalty factored in for this. Another thing to think about on the safety front is that put simply, a two tonne car takes longer to stop from speed, when the kiddies run out, than a one tonne car, due to physics..... :-) Nice One @John Cadogan
COMPARING THOSE TWO VEHICLES IS LIKE COMPARING A ROTTEN APPLE TO A PEANUT. THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD OR NEED A BIGGER VEHICLE AREN'T GOING TO CHOOSE THE MAZDA SH!!TBOX
Sneaky, but the opposite is happening. The US, EU, Canada and Turkey have imposed import taxes of 17-40% and up to 100% (US) on Chinese BEVs due to government subsidies being provided to lower prices.
A couple of old mates became politicians after university. Most of us just said, “what a shame. He had so much potential” maybe the potential was just a cunning act
Minor correction to these figures - you need to include CO2 in production and transport of petrol, which adds about 30% (less for diesel). I realize you've left out some production emissions around generating electricity from coal as well, but best to include both for a more solid comparison.
But if he added CO2 production for the refining and transport of oil, his numbers wouldn't show that ICE cars produce 10% less CO2. And if he chose to choose comparable cars with more realistic mileage efficiency, it would be worse again. The ONLY way he can support his argument is to used unrealistic numbers, flawed logic and dishonest tactics. He's made that abundantly clear.
@@cross8manroberts119 yep. I didn’t mind his channel. I thought he was tough but fair. But this report has shone a light on his true motivations. He’s not stupid, so these omissions are 100% intentional
@@DIYMick Argonne labs in the US have found the well to tank process for motor fuel to be 80% to 85% efficient. This would add about 20% to the CO2 emissions for the Mazda. He also said he didn't add the GHGe emissions from fugitive emissions in mining the coal used to generate the electricity for the Tesla (about 5%). His figures also likely didn't include extra CO2 from grid losses between the coal power plant and wherever the Tesla is charged (about 10%), or due to losses in the charger (about 5%). It probably also doesn't include the CO2 from the manufacture of solar cells and wind turbines either..... He also said himself that the Mazda wasn't equivalent to the Tesla, but he used it to demonstrate that if you really wanted to save CO2, you could buy the smaller, cheaper, Mazda (which also produced less CO2 during manufacture btw), instead of the Tesla.....
@@DIYMick This guy has become a clown show for the petrol industry and a traitor. The biggest oil producers are Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela. Think about it.
I purchased a Mazda 2 on your recommendation back in 2016. Awesome little car. Highway driving it would get 4.9l per 100ks. Traded it in for an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifolio. Even the Alfa would get 8.1L per 100 highway.
I bought a second hand Mazda 323 back in 92 for about a hundred quid and ran it into the ground for another 4 years and scrapped it for 70 quid all I had to buy for it was tyres and brake pads, cracking little cars and always have been
@@sheepyracing2774 Get a zero out of your 0.05/100 and multiply by 2 (unless your gas in Australia is $3/L ). And recall, the video is about overall CO2 emission, not the cost of running on subsidized plans. As I read, average electricity rates are in 20-30 c/kwh range, so if you paid market electricity rate, you would be paying around the cost of 3 liters of gas per 100 km
I'm a feral bush baby who grew up "chasing butterflies off cliffs with fascination overload". I like the natural environment and have grown up working to protect it. So, so happy I've held on to my old civic in spite of the ev misinformation.
@@Electric666s😂 I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t watch the video. But I suspect you’re the person living in fantasy land that John mentions….
@@someonethatwatchesyoutube2953 when you have a chance, please go through the comments discussing the points about many of the assumptions that John gets quite wrong. He even contradicts himself on the video. It isn’t fantasy land.
I would purchase an ev if..... they cost as little as a basic ice car, if the batteries lasted more than 10 years (my car is 2009 and still has all it's horses after manufacturers maintenance) if thoses batteries could be recycled to the highest % available comparable to lead acid batteries and the rest of the cars materials. And the biggest if.. if thoses that were buying them new weren't hypocritical consumerists that replaced their car every time the wind shifted fashion trends and then turn around and say their doing it for the environment. Sorry but you can claim all sorts of benefits but buying a new car, especially those early in there conception such as ev'S, when perfectly fuctioning ice cars are on the road is stupid and regressive. Oh and don't forget, if the power used to charge them wasn't from, taadaaaaa, coal! Sure I could go solar but cars have this ability to travel away from said solar... and I live in a rental. Ya think a landlord is gonna give af about that, there to busy hiking rents. Stop falling for greenwashing by consuming, or, remove any environmental argument as a reason to buy an ev. It's a fashion and will be until people only buy them because the old ice one has disintegrated. As for costs up front do the math and at some point, if you travel low kms or below, the money spent on an ev could buy a functional ice car with money left over to give to an environmental charity, cover fuel and maintenance costs annually. By the time you reach equivalence with an ev the batteries on the ev poop themselves and more, much more $ is required to move. Meanwhile for a fraction of that cost the ice transmission can be replaced (if you don't know how to use and maintain them) the engine can be retuned etc, all without the mining to creat a whole new battery pack (and if it's a Tesla basically everything else that breaks down 10ks after driving off the lot) To top it how can it be more environmentally friendly (at this stage of development) when virgin environments have to be destroyed because now there's a greater need for elements we didn't really use much of in the past. Yes, more steel, lead, and all the regular elements in ice cars are still being mined but exhaust old mines and recycle to keep them going. Don't go looking for fresh ground to destroy. You can have all the atmospheric balance between CO2, O2, N etc but if there's no land to live and grow off.....? Oh and I forgot. I can put my ice car in storage for 2 years and still rely on it to start, an evs batteries start dying as soon as there made so if not hooked up to a battery management system they probably won't even charge after 2 years of no u and then need to be replaced. That is if the ev hasn't started a fire.
Great calculations, I do agree charging an EV off the grid is not a great idea, although a couple of points have not been considered: - You need to add the CO2 emitted when gas and diesel is produced and transported, add 30% for a gas car and 24% for a diesel. - Most EV;s sold in Australia are made in China (including Tesla), these mostly use Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries (LFP), which have much lower average production emissions of 56 kgCO2/kWh - In 2023, the emissions intensity from electricity generation in Australia was around 549g of C02/kWh, 650g was closer to 2020 figures (642g), these figures are trending down over time with the addition of renewables.
Also not accounting for the fact that it's incredibly easy to write off a Model Y and then you have to start that over again, or if it needs a battery replacement under warranty (which is hardly unheard of) - in which case you have to add another 7 tons. And there are heaps of 20 and even 30 year old Mazdas still running around which simply will not happen with EVs. They will be replaced with newer ones.
It all depends on battery tech. If it’s the same shite batteries, at these prices (adjusted for inflation), the EVs will be disposable. However, the electric motor is extremely reliable and pretty hard to kill. Not that much that can go wrong with them.
Exactly. A 20 year old Mazda, that has been well maintained, will still be just as efficient as it was when new. Can't say or expect the same from that Tesla, in fact the Tesla will have been consigned to the breakers long before it gets to 20 years of age - because battery degradation and replacement cost (if it's even available) will be too expensive to be worthwhile.
@@meuknowwho7041 theoretically yes, but a lot of EV motors have been replaced - and the bottom line is that the battery is the most important part of the vehicle and once it's no longer serviceable that is realistically the end of life for that car.
@@mahcooharper9577 yeah that was my point. The battery. Of course you’re going to get dud motors. But generally, in most electric machines, the motors are very durable. If you know electric motors, especially brushless, you know that there isn’t much that can go wrong with them if wired etc properly with a good controller and hall sensors
1. Petrol Cars Oil Extraction and Processing: Drilling and Extraction: ~15-30 kg CO2 per barrel of crude oil. Refining: ~30-40 kg CO2 per barrel of crude oil. Transportation: ~10-15 kg CO2 per barrel of crude oil. A barrel of crude oil yields about 72 liters of petrol. CO2 per liter of petrol (upstream): ~1.8-2.0 kg CO2. Combustion in Vehicles: Combustion Emissions: ~2.31 kg CO2 per liter of petrol burned. Total Lifecycle Emissions (Petrol Car): Average annual driving distance (Australia): ~13,000 km. Fuel efficiency (average petrol car): ~8 liters/100 km. Annual fuel consumption: ~1,040 liters. Annual CO2 emissions (combustion only): ~2.4 tons CO2. Upstream emissions (extraction, refining, transport): ~2.0 tons CO2. Total Annual CO2 Emissions for Petrol Car: ~4.4 tons CO2. 2. Electric Vehicles (EVs) Battery Manufacturing: Battery production emissions: ~50-75 kg CO2 per kWh of battery capacity. Typical EV battery size: ~60 kWh. Total battery production emissions: ~3.0-4.5 tons CO2. Electricity Generation for Charging: Australian grid average CO2 intensity: ~0.7 kg CO2 per kWh (depends on the energy mix). EV efficiency: ~15-20 kWh per 100 km. Annual energy consumption: ~2,000-2,600 kWh (for 13,000 km). Annual CO2 emissions from charging: ~1.4-1.8 tons CO2. Total Lifecycle Emissions (EV): Battery production (spread over an assumed 10-year lifespan): ~0.3-0.45 tons CO2 per year. Annual CO2 emissions from charging: ~1.4-1.8 tons CO2. Total Annual CO2 Emissions for EV: ~1.7-2.25 tons CO2. Comparison Summary: Petrol Car: ~4.4 tons CO2 per year. Electric Vehicle: ~1.7-2.25 tons CO2 per year (assuming Australia's current energy mix).
You’ve awakened my PTSD from the lectures I took during analytical methods lectures studying civil engineering at uni. Despite the fact that I’m wrapped in a cold sweat this is great content John. You’re doing the work that no one else is prepared to do. When you boil the numbers down it’s ever more clear that EVs really are just greenwashing and virtue signalling done by those who knit yogurt and wear lentil based clothing.
There is plenty of people doing the work but no one will report on it except the oil companies and when they do it gets considered about as accurate as the tobacco industry's research into lung cancer . Lots of mining & metal processing groups have crunched the numbers from all sorts of angles to prove without a question 100% EV can never ever happen . I could tell you that VW cancelled an entire range of EVs back in 2018 because they could not a guaranteed cobalt supply contract for the estimated life of the model range . Mercedes had a similar problem with Niobium so they changed the entire drive train . Then there is thallium , another metal that is crucial for the high efficiency electric motors, they don't call them "Rare Earth Metals" so they can bump the ticket price up higher .
@@I-have-a-brain_and-use-it "crunched the numbers from all sorts of angles to prove without a question 100% EV can never ever happen" Really! have you not seen what has happened in the last 50 years with battery & motor technology! They are already here, they are happening, and like everything else in the technology space, they will get better, lighter, smaller, cheaper and more efficient, like computers, phones, laptops, tablets. John @AutoExpertJC is not saying they are not viable ever, he is just saying the numbers don't currently stack up as much as they are hyped by certain groups now.
A few TH-camrs shouting into the ether and a handful of scientists publishing reports on scientific websites that no one will even find online let alone read does not balance out governments enforcing EVs as all new vehicle purchases, with £17.5k fines per ICE/PHEV/HEV by 2030 in the UK. If you’re reading this you already know what a stupid decision this is but it’s going to happen unless a lot more people refuse to buy EVs. The market will dictate the future. All the big car makers are pulling away from EV production already. If the consumer refuses EVs then it may change but only if they reject EVs out of hand.
This also does not account for the all particulate matter that ends up in the environment from higher wear and tear of tires on heavier vehicles (and the roads they mangle up more), so the environmental impact of heavy EVs is even worse.
- roads are simply conduits for petrochemicals to reenter nature - one micro particle at a time - may as well add all the shopping bags to the mix, fish food within 50 years..
@@mawhimFor any given type and size of car, the electric version weighs more... a lot more, as shown by this very comparison, and if you want to give any electric car the same range as its ICE version, the difference would be even greater. It is absurd to say that some ICE cars weigh the same as some EVs... of course they do, but take everyone out of their current ICE car and put them into an equivalent sized and specced EV and the average weight of vehicles will increase significantly.
Hi John. It doesnt matter if you have Solar or not. When charging your EV the power is not going into the grid. The grid has to replace this power. This will be at the average grid carbon intenity of 680 g/kwhr (NSW), close to your estimate of 650 BTW.
Have you wondered why electricity retailers these days are now paying a pittance for feed in power from PV systems? It's because on even moderately days when PV systems are producing, the grid has an excess of PV power.....to the point where the wholesale price of power often goes negative. For someone like myself with a decent sized PV system....economically it makes sense to direct excess power from my system into a home battery or EV rather than sell it into the grid for 5c/kWh.
John a few things... 1. if you're with a retailer such as Amber which passes through wholesale pricing, it is cheaper to charge in the middle of a sunny day when feed in tariffs are sometimes negative, 2. it doesn't matter where you charge during the day. Whether or not you charge at home or at work (apart from transmission losses) the net effect is the same. If you charge from home, you neighbours get less of your excess solar. If you charge at work, you neighbours get the solar that otherwise would've gone into your EV and you just get the electrons somewhere else from the grid. However, apart from transmission losses, there is no difference between charging at home and charging at work from a carbon dioxide perspective. 3. Hence the answer is to charge at work (or at home on non work days eg: weekends) during a sunny day on a plan which transfers wholesale electricity pricing such as amber when prices are really low and when sometimes the feed in tariff is even negative. 4. charging from the grid in the middle of a sunny day and helping to stabilize the grid when feed in tariffs are actually sometimes negative is actually a very environmentally conscious way to charge.
I was listening to the radio this morning 3AW Ampol is pulling out of EV Charging Stations 92 have been installed Out of 300. Not going any further with the target of 300.
@@MrkBO8 I pass a Ampol with Ev charging station I might see one or two EV Vehicles charging Once every few weeks I pass this service station 8 times a day Monday through Friday And always empty Actually I have seen a Tow Truck with a Tesla on the back Into the charging station 🚉 🤣
It's not ampol it's Exxon. Their livery is identical. When you watch American and even English utubes the rebadged Caltex stations to ampol have probably reduced their tax to zero again this year!
That's odd, According to The Sydney Morning Herald business company section (August 19, 2024), Fuel giant Ampol to miss target for electric vehicle charging bays... "Ampol, which operates 1800 service stations nationally and Brisbane’s Lytton oil refinery, on Monday said it was making progress expanding its network of on-the-go electric charging infrastructure to cater for the growing number of motorists buying electric vehicles, with 92 charging bays now at 41 locations." I think 3AW is misleading its listeners... 🤨 But that's nothing new is it 🤭
I decided to respond BEFORE I read any other comments. I had reason to do a CO2 impact review based on the UK grid and average milage a year ago so am familiar with the field. I want to comment on a couple of things but first I want to make it clear that your conclusion that small vehicles are better is the key one, thats where incentives / disincentives need to be targeted. Comment 1. You should take home roof top solar into account, this should be done for the whole system not an individual case (as you highlighted, allocating carbon free electricity to a specific activity is false). Home solar replaces grid electricity (regardless of what it is used for) so is in effect its boosting the grid CO2 performance. I googled it and in Australia roof top solar generates about 11.2% of the electricity (other numbers are probably availible but I am running with that for this post). So grid = 650g/kWh for 89% electricity used solar at zero for 11% (ignoring CO2 impact of the panels, wires, etc) so a better figure used for domestic elctricity CO2 intesity in Australia should be about 580g/kWh (89% of the 650g). That changes the TESLA performance to 23t, down from 25t originally calculated. Comment 2. Todays grid is not what the grid will be over 10 years. The grid is lowering its CO2 over time. This should be acknowledged clearly. You could/should do an assumption for this. Again that would benefit the Tesla example. (I will leave that to others to do some maths on that). Comment 3. We can re-calcualte using a smaller EV instead of the lardy Tesla. This is so important. Lardy giant EVs are the missed opportunity. A "50kW Mazda 2 EV" would show a substantial CO2 reduction. Say it gets 0.166 kWh/km the calc for 10 years would be 150,000 km x 0.166 x 580g/kWh = 14.4t CO2. On top of that there would be a saving in production CO2 with a lighter EV battery (88 x 50 / 1,000) 4.4t. Therefore a small EV will be around 18.8t CO2 over 10 years based on the current domestic electricity CO2 intensity - a saving over the petrol Mazda 2 of 3.7t or a saving of 4.2t over the Tesla. Comment 4. Cars last longer than 10 years. The average lifespan of EVs is uncertain given they have not been about for long. They represent a new tech so we can expect the early EVs to have a lower average lifespan than current petrol cars, but current and future ones will quickly catch up and we should not assume they will be substantially different in future. One thing is for sure, just like petol cars they will last longer than 10 years on average. If anyone has read this far, well done. You can have a gold star.
The big take home is "lardy" and I 100% agree a Mazda 2 EV would be a clear winner and what EVs should be instead of electrified Chevy suburban porkers like the EV9 etc. I own a Holden Cruze. No fancy doors or other junk. I just want a similar car that has an electric drivetrain and I can even wind down my windows, not full of gimmicky junk that breaks down and cost a fortune to fix and all the stupid nanny state rubbish like lane keep etc. No money in that so it will never happen. EVs are marketed in the luxury car mindset.
@@rogerpearson9081 In Europe we should start to see more small EVs coming out from main car makers. They are being forced to sell a minimum number of EVs now. To do that they will need cheap small & some basic EVs to get numbers up at smallest loss. At same time small ICE cars will come off the market as focus from car makers will be on getting best margin from the ICE cars. We need basic simple EVs along lines of your old Cruze.
Best family car?? You must have a midget family, because my sons who are almost teens dont even fit into the back seat of the mazda 2 with my drivers seat in driving position as a 6"2 dude. Theyre both well above 5 foot, but the Mazda 2 space is tiny and they fit just fine into a Hyundai Getz or Suzuki Ignis
Hey John, where do you factor in the CO2 emissions for each litre of fossil fuel produced? Pumping it out of the ground and supply chain to the petrol station? If that's added, what does that do to your modelling? The same would apply to emissions related to making electricity too. Would that make a material difference, either way, on your results and conclusions?
19:04 John, real world Mazda2 owner here. Our own 2 went to 6.0lt/100 average for the first 10k and then settled and resolutely stuck 5.9lt/100 for the remained of the time we had the car to 90k. My wife babied it, I flogged it and 5.9 was the worst the average ever got. Your number is very fair at 6.5/100. However, you have completely missed the CO involved in extraction and processing of the crude oil into fuel for the Mazda2 for a fair comparison. If we include the battery in the EV and its fuel, so we must the fuel for the ICE car. Mazda2 still the better choice.
What method did you use to get those numbers? From car computer or calculated from fuel bill and distance traveled? I'm asking this because there may be discrepancy between those numbers. For my car, there is roughly 0.75-1L/100km difference (computer shows less/better mileage).
Reasonable point, but John has not included the losses in charging either his approach is reasonable. A quick look on google gives the loss between 4 & 20 per cent when charging. I would suggest that if you counted both upstream CO2 from oil refining & distribution it would balance out the charging losses.
I have bought 2 cars in my life , When I first got my licence in 1995 I bought a GQ Patrol currently it has done 480k original motor , a decade later I bought an X-Trail for the missus it currently sists at 145k. Both cars still drive perfectly and I don't plan on buying new cars as I have no need on one. I would like to see an EV last half as long.
Lovely calculations Mr Cadogan but they did not seem to include the CO2 cost of extraction and transportation of oil, the CO2 cost of refining that oil to diesel and petrol and the associated CO2 cost to transport it to the distribution hubs. Also you compare the opportunity cost of a 31k Mazda with a 90k Tesla when a punter could buy a 45k MG or BYD EV which would be a much closer match.
Ripper video John- thanks for building some clarity around the hysteria, MALS! I was recently in Indonesia and was shocked to see how much better the Indonesians ranked on the CO2 per capita charts! This is besides every second house burning their own plastic rubbish. Interesting that 99% of the vehicles were either kei trucks or scooters, no 2.5 tonne shit boxes carting a single flog around. They’d rather put 4 flogs on a moped and enjoy the “fresh air”. This would be a really interesting study that I could do in more detail I suppose in my spare time. Anyhow, love the show and roolly roolly hope you read this out in the bogan voice!
I looked into this earlier this year and was surprised by the numbers. One thing you briefly mentioned, charging efficiency, makes a massive difference. On average, the efficiency is around 85%, but it varies depending on the type of charger and the ambient temperature. On particularly cold or hot days, efficiency can drop as low as 60%. Factoring in the average efficiency of 85% could result in a difference in CO2 emissions closer to -19%.
how much difference would it make if he factored in the CO2 emissions to mine, refine and transport oil? A glaring omission from his "unbiased' analysis. Or how much difference if he used more realistic milage figures. Who gets 6.5L per 100km's? Certainly no car of equivalent size to Tesla Y. And how much difference if he picked a car that wasn't much smaller and lighter so he couldn't get the maximum battery weight to pump up the battery CO2 numbers? This analysis was a crock.
Hi John, I love your suggestion of incentivising low co2 emission vehicles that's excellent. I'm a firm believer that smaller cars are the best way forward too. Can you clear up whether that number of co2 emission you have for the mazda includes the co2 that has gone into producing the petrol, or is it just the co2 the mazda directly produces as it burns fuel? I'd like to see a comparison that adds the 'cost' in co2 of producing the fuel and getting the fuel into the mazda's fuel tank, the same way you are measuring the co2 that has gone into producing the electricity that the EV consumes, and also allow for the distribution loss, and conversion loss of getting that energy into the EV's battery pack. I say this because the main cost of production, storage technology and consumption should all be weighed together. Otherwise you're sort of measuring just the bit of the picture you want to measure, and I'm interested to see if it still works out the co2 costs are the same!
Also there’s the recycle lifespan to consider too. The Mazda will be a fully viable used car after 10 years usage. Whereas the Tesla wouldn’t be so viable due to the 8 year warranty has ran out and end of life disposal of the batter costs and C02 cost. I’ll stick with my fully serviceable ICE vehicle. Great video John 👍
which makes the opportunity cost of the expensive EV even worse from a financial standpoint. As the grid has more pressure on it electricity prices will continue to rise making public charging even more expensive further impacting the financials. I also fear the quality of the horde of chinese made EVs, which may be cheaper upfront, but not over the lifetime, which is likely to be much less thatn quality made vehicles.
You forget the CO2 released from manufacturing the internal combustion engine, transmission, fuel tank and everything associated with the propulsion system of the ICE car. The comparison of CO2 emissions from ICE and EV has been done by real scientists many many times. The result is that EVs make up the increased CO2 released during manufacturing in about 2 years of operation. After that the EV is all cleaner.
He didn’t forget. He purposely omitted them as the’s the only way he could his paltry 10% difference between a Y and a small lightweight ICE car using unrealistic mileage
Hi John, once again, i always appreciate your imput on this matter, and i hope i can get a response. As an electrical engineer and part time statistician, i have a couple of faults with this analysis. Firstly: no one would ever compare the masda to a tesla, theyre not equivalent vehicles, one is probably for someone that GENUINELY enjoys driving, one is for someone that enjoys taking journeys and needs a commuter or buisness vehicle and probably doesnt care for the car more than how it performs (generalisation) but i wouldnt class them in the same category. If you want a smaller 4/5 seater EV, a good example would be a dacia, voxhaul, or a vw id. I completely agree with your estimate about materials and production for the overall vehicle, however, and one thing i believe that is missed out about the batteries here are 2 things: The majority of co2 estimates come from fossil fuel burning for electricity to produce the batteries. (So essentially the cleaner the grid of the country you manufacture, the cleaner the batteries). This also means that the more that a country invests in renewables, the cleaner making a battery becomes. (I believe Australia and china burns alot of coal) however the assumption that our grid will never get any greener is one of the biggest fundamental flaw in most arguments against EVs. And 2, some (not all) battery plants are powered by 100% renewable energy and only use the grid to top up any lack in power. A massive factor that you havent included is the amount of refining and production that goes to manufacturing fuel, it doesnt just come out of the ground and go straight into the car. In fact nearly the exact same amount of energy goes into refining the fuel as does lithium refining (same weight). This utterly ruins any argument against EVs by itself but... The other is massive transport costs to transport the gasoline by boat and truck. Times any of this by 10 years and including this into any calculation, it absolutely destroys any comparison to any EV car. - primarily because electricity is often pumped (gas), or is generated within the country (neuclear, solar, wind). Coal is a big exception, however alot of countriees are phasing this out. I agree with alot of your maths, and will trust that the sources you found are reliable. However, Even Conservative estimates of EVs show that EVs reduce by over double if not tripple the Co2 consumption when compared to a 100% dirty grid.
GENUINELY enjoys driving in Australia with a 110 KPH limit? Refining coal into electric power? vast holes mining and transportation. Try Perth airport every morning of the week going to work on jets to mine rare earth metals. The solar panels require the same metals. If you are happy to have a Nuclear power station give us your post code.
@@DS9FANINDADEFIANT Speed limits are a cash cow in Australia. Traffic police behind every saltbush and no lane discipline. Most Australians barely go over 60. Given the inexperience of most drivers, car makers hand them a weapon that does 0-100 in 2.3 seconds, what could go wrong? Even in the dark, the Kangaroos get you. I used to drive high-performance cars, these days I look and my brain switches on. Why bother?
@sustainart5207 you don't have to make a turbocharged V6 in a car... you don't have to put a 180+KW motor in a tesla or any other EV. Some EVs are slow, unfortunately it's alot easier for an electric motor to be powerful (and it's more efficient for it to be) so it has to be software limited to cap speed and torque. Which is fine, but then people complain that they don't have full power.
@@sustainart5207 nuke power is fantastic and very safe. Happy to have it near me, in the USofA but i'd be happy to have it in a less spacious country as well if i lived in one.
You missed a very important detail. Producing fuel is very energy intensive and you dump a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. There is the gas refineries just burn to get rid off, there is all that heating required to run the distillation process (hundreds of degrees on a fuckton of raw material). And there is the shipping and transportation of crude and distilled products. Oil must somehow get to Straia and then gas must get to the pump.
Nice and simple - good work. But - why did you pick the Model Y Performance which has the largest battery and is not a close comparison to a Mazda 2. Why not a smaller BYD or something with a smaller battery? It carries 4 people (as you said that was you guide to pick an equivalent EV). You included the calculations in CO2 creating the electricity and the manufacturing of the batteries, but not the CO2 in the manufacturing of the fuel - not just the burning of the fuel. Dunno - I might run your same numbers on a smaller cheaper EV and add those CO2 numbers for the manufacture of the fuel and see how that comes out. Might flip the the number I expect
Recently attended Belrose Supa Centre in NSW. EV charging points in the bottom level of the carpark, which has 4 or 5 levels above. Chargers are located right next to the moving escalators/lift well that continues up to the top floor of the building. There is a rooftop carpark, which is open air. Surely a better place for chargers!
From what I understand, the car parks are not engineered to take the weight of Evs on the upper floors. The charging stations are likely near the lifts because the structure is stronger there and the electrical lines are there as well. Safety is not considered.
I suck at maths, but with your explanation this demonstration was made quite clear. When I first saw the whiteboard, I said 'Nope. I'm out', but wound up watching until the end. Thank you!
So many things that are biased in this comparison. You have taken the CO2 "cost" for the production of the fuel for the EV, but not for the ICE car. When you add that in (total CO2 emissions Well-to-pump for 1 L of petrol is 3310 g/L CO2EQ) and 6.5 l/100km and 150000 km (150000x6.5/100x3.310=32272.5 kg) you get 32(ish) Tonnes of CO2EQ for the Mazda, NOT the 22.5 T you have claimed. This instantly makes the Model Y (even by your calculations) about 20% better in CO2 emissions. Then if you use a more fair comparison vehicle to vehicle on performance, choose the Model 3 Performance, as you chose the Model Y performance spec (461 kW, 741 nm, $80900) vs Alfa Giulia QV (As I see one mentioned in the comments and it's a wonderful car) (375 kW, 600 nm, $172000). Here the battery mass is about 300 kg less (less initial emissions) the mass difference is about 200 kg in favour of the Alfa, but with the battery mass taken out it's 300 kg in favour of the Tesla. But I'll concede that the CO2 cost for the production of each vehicle is about the same without the battery. Using your formula (88 kg CO2/kWh) gives the cost of 7.128T for the battery and 18 T for the "fuel", or 25 T in total. The Alfa @ 8.2 L/100km has a CO2 footprint of 41 Tonnes. A whopping 40% reduction. And, this is not taking into account the CO2 costs for servicing and maintenance. Now, to take things to the ridiculous extremes that you often do. With the $90k in savings, you could buy 80 kWh of home batteries and have enough left over to put in a 3-phase level 2 charger (presumably for you outside your garage), sign up to OVO and get three hours of free electricity between 11am and 2pm and charge the battery for free each day when the grid is usually around 70% renewable and getting better each year, which drops your 650 g/kWh to about 200 g/kWh and the 18 T CO2 for "fuel" to 5.5 T (overall 12.7 T emissions for the EVs). Of course you would need to add in the CO2 equivalent for the battery production (7 T), but this will last probably 20 years, so let's halve that figure to 3.5 T. Add this to the 12.7 T and you'll get 16 T CO2EQ for a model 3 performance or a massive 60% savings over the Alfa. So maybe you'd better change the rating to AF, "Alternative facts" or BS as those of us that ARE scientifically literate would call it.
I love it when someone provides actual analysis and facts that are irrefutable. There's something very odd going with these so called petrol heads that makes them continue to support an industry that has lied to all of us and contaminated our lives for a century, not to mention the billions that the oil industry receives every single year in government subsidies (and they complain about government helps to get an EV, so laughable). Thanks for this, honestly.
Yes the 150g CO2/km for Petrol in the ICE is a little light, i'd expect the value to around 220-250 g/km when you include both production and consumption.
I also want to add: For those mentioning that battery “must be changed after 10 years” which isn’t the case, and that the degradation is a must %80 which again isn’t likely to be that bad. What about ICE ??? I have owned mazda before and like it, but irrelative of brand, do you really think the engine will stay efficient like day one?? After 6 years I kid you not my mazda which was brand new was doing 530-550km per fill up (cx9) it went down as bad as 430-450 km overfill up) and the trip computer confirmed that. And that’s after me being OCD and baby my car a lot don’t speed etc. U do the math !! I’m not being ev evangelism lol but since telling facts it’s good to tell the whole story. There’s even an episode on top gear (hardcore ice show, ev hater) which gladly shows a Mercedes lose between 20-40 % can’t remember exactly as it ages and rated power is less, therefore less efficient, less range etc. Nothing works like when brand new doesn’t matter what it is!! At least the electric motor stays same exact efficiency for its life. Battery degradation is strictly less range nothing else. And 359-450km is more than enough daily driving I got 510km range with my model y LR drove Sydney to past Newcastle and still had 58% of battery, with 5 heavy adults and more than 120kg of bags cargo for holiday packed to the max. In 40 degree summer heat And many inclines getting there! This is tested in real life i even doubted myself it would even arrive there before supercharging, I honestly didn’t even supercharge… Just used a normal charger while there charged back to 80% for local driving done at night. Than with 70% drive back to Sydney 10 days later. That week I completely got over the so called “range anxiety” Now I drive to Goulburn and back with not even a sweat.
Few additions: the green electricity at 36:15 isn’t a con or scam, the grid operators have been disconnecting wind and solar farms during the middle of the day for the last 2 years. Also inverter throttling is becoming more widespread. Hence small scale exported electricity like residential solar that isn’t self consumed is effectively wasted. His charging at night assumption was based on the lower tariffs between 11pm-6 am in the past. The tariffs have finally caught up and people’s charging habits are changing very quickly. The 40% renewable is total electricity, including charging at night. If charging during the day without rooftop solar, the average in Australia was estimated for 2023 was around 65% and above 70% for 2024, I don’t recall where I read this.
John Brilliant Vlog as always Solar Sydney 32 degrees Latitude South Wyndham 15 degrees South 15 degrees North Mali, Mexico etc 32 degrees North Phoenix Arizona Dallas Texas. London 51, Edinburgh 56 degrees North The decrease in Solar through Europe is huge. You are an Engineering Maverick.
Hi John. I have a couple of points for you to consider in your calculations. You have calculated the tailpipe emissions of the Mazda 2 but you haven't accounted for the CO2 emissions involved in getting oil out of the ground, refining it and transporting it. If you can find figures for this your calculation will change significantly. As a side issue you could find the amount of electricity used to refine the road fuel and how far the Tesla could travel on just that. Estimates I have seen are in the range of 4kWh for each imperial gallon of petrol refined. Also your politicians are clever enough to have solar panels that can charge the Tesla at night, here in Brexitistan our solar panels only work during the day. I would be delighted to see your figures reworked to include road fuel carbon emissions. Kind regards. Jack
Excellent video and analysis John. The CO2 emission results for EVs are actually significantly worse than you have already noted after you factor in all the CO2 emissions associated with doubling the electricity generation capacity, and replacing every single piece of electrical infrastructure (generators, transmission towers, transmission lines, sub-stations, transformers, local transmission lines and local transformers). After years of assertions that an EV vehicle fleet would only add a few percent to power generation and distribution requirements, both Elon Musk and the US electrical energy suppliers have, in recent months, noted that the size of the grid needs to be doubled just for EVs. And then increased another 50% for all the additional load associated with massive data storage associated with AI and cloud storage.
Agreed....unfortunately the majority [talking 99.9%] of the people watching this great informative video already question EV v's ICE and Climate Change [or whatever the current politically correct gender identity title / pro noun is] and therefore won't be persuaded in to the EV market. Because of 'the Global Elite / WEF / The Agenda there's no mainstream media or journalist who will publish or cover this even if to try to discredit because they know they can't and if they tried the 'aforementioned' would remove funding and shut them down. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish but only after you've provided indisputable facts that I'm wrong
Data centers in A.Murica are another energy challenge for the grid competing with EVs. Getting trucks electrified too has been problematic with just one Tesla truck needing a megawatt charger. Even doubling the grid would not be enough for this utopia we are being sold.
Another problem that doesn’t get reported enough is that we are running out of sunlight and wind due to the solar panels and wind turbines; if we keep building them, we will end up with deserts everywhere as no wind cools them and everyone in the dark as we used up all the sunlight. We need to drill more, the earth makes more then enough crude to last forever! No more solar and wind, stop using up those limited resources!!
@@rattusfinkusretired power company electrician here, increasing the grid power demand to accommodate the EV charging also dramatically increases the line losses of delivering that power to the point of consumption! Sorry dude!
John called out the obvious disparity in size between a Mazda 2 and a Model Y, with the mazda 2 being significantly smaller than the Tesla, especially boot space. Why not compare the Mazda to something like a BYD Atto 3 which is also far closer in price and size.
You included the CO2 emissions to generate the fuel for the EV, but you did not include the CO2 generated in producing the perrol for the Mazda. That should probably be added to the Mazda's emissions
If he was to include the CO2 of the fuel production, I guess he should have also considered the CO2 of the manufacturing of solar panels, inverters and wind farms. 🤔
I was once told by my then boss "never argue against yourself" which I took to mean choose the best case you can find to make your point. You appear to be following that advice in this case. I have no major problems with your calculations but the Mazda 2 GT and the Tesla model Y are in no way similar. Once is a front wheel drive and the other is an all wheel drive. If you do the comparison using the Tesla Model 3 RWD you save 2 tons of CO2 in manufacturing the battery as it is a 57.5 KWh battery. It also is more efficient than the Model Y. You included the CO2 cost of manufacturing the fuel (electricity) for the Tesla but not the CO2 cost of the Mazda's fuel. As petrol in Australia is all imported you should have included the CO2 cost of extracting the crude, shipping it to a refinery, refining it , shipping it to Australia and distributing it. I suspect that would be more than the half ton of CO2 difference between the Mazda and the Tesla Model 3. The model 3 RWD is $25,000 cheaper than the Model Y performance so that money could be used to purchase solar panels and a battery given your comment that one would get change from $30,000 for such a system. When you look at your figures what jumps out at me is the CO2 cost of the EVs electricity 18 tons out of the total of 25 tons or 72% of the CO2 for a Model Y and 78% of the 23 tons of CO2 for a Model 3. That is where government actions should be focused. In Australia that is happening with the dirtiest source of CO2 (coal) being rapidly removed from power generation. By my calculations the EV is slightly better for overall CO2 production not the 10% worse your figures show.
I'm not going to dispute your figures as they appear to be reasonable and thus your conclusion is reasonable too. However, it fails to answer the exam question: Will the CO2 savings of EV save the Planet? That answer would have to be, NO, as the savings amount to the square root of fuck all. In addition, you want the cost of creating and transporting the fuel for the Mazda. OK, what about the CO2 costs of upgrading the National Grids of every country on Earth?
@@csjrogerson2377we can be a bit nuanced in our logic. Will shifting all ICE cars to EV get CO2 to the consensus level it needs to be ? No. But can we get CO2 to that level without decarbonising vehicle transport? Also no. We need to lots of things simultaneously and it’s usually better to do the easy things first and for most people using an EV rather than an ICE is achievable and impactful.
@@Andrew-sq2oy Ok, but there is no consensus to make cuts in CO2 production in domestic, industrial or agricultural areas. There are zero proposals on offer.
Hi John, despite all the funny comments here, I get the underlying conclusion: the opportunity cost of the 60k to save the planet far outweighs the differences of the vehicles whole of life ownership CO2 emissions.
The fun thing about statistics is that you can cherry pick them to say whatever you want, but it takes a lot of tinfoil to deny the massive upsurge in cancer and lung\breathing issues. Interestingly enough, they used statistics to advertise the health benefits of cigarette smoking for a long time to increase the adoption rate until it was considered ignorant NOT to smoke to improve your health and the health of those around you.
Why didn't you compare the subcompact ICEV with a subcompact BEV? This comparison is somewhat unfair because they are different size classes. A fair comparison would be between Mazda 2 and Chevrolet Bolt EV or Nissan LEAF.
he needed to make it as unfair as possible to get the 10% advantage over ice. He didn't even include emissions for mining and refining oil into petrol. That's how biased it is
Great video John. A few other things that might be taken into account in ICE / EV comparisons include 1. the environmental cost of upgrading the grid (at least here in the UK) to provide the extra power for EV charging (steel, concrete etc). 2. CO2 cost of extra road maintenance due to heavier vehicles. 3 CO2 cost of manufacturing solar arrays. There will of course be extras on the other side of the equation like new oil exploration etc. Calculations might be a bit more difficult for all the extra costs on both sides of the equation.
I acknowledge that I am by your definition the "green zealot, with the perfect job, massive solar array and ideally located etc.) I used your numbers to calculate the impact of my EV (a Mini Cooper SE) and found that it results in 18.5 tons of CO2, which puts me ahead in terms of emissions-even when considering your grid charging CO2 figures. I also fit the ADHD example you mentioned-I have a 14kW solar array on my house and charge my EV entirely from solar power, only plugging in when there's surplus energy. Over the car's lifetime, my EV will be significantly more environmentally friendly than a comparable ICE equivalent. While I understand that I'm an outlier and that you're focusing on the average consumer, it's worth noting that I am not some hairy hippy greenie, but some of us can still achieve a better outcome in terms of CO2 emissions. One thing missing from the discussion is that many people choose an EV because it offers a superior driving experience for daily use, not for perceived environmental reasons.
The EV driving experience is certainly great. I have only driven one briefly but apart from retarded controls ( model 3 indicator is actually cruise resume but why?) I loved the smooth continuous acceleration and ever came to grips with the one pedal driving pretty easily. Having 13.2 kW of solar wont be 100 % of my charging solution but with the shifts I work it would give me about 2 hours of charge time most days to keep a floating charge and then a bit more on days off. Once we get a simple (read cheaper) EV without all the frippery and it has a battery that's safe to park next to my front door I'm in.
I love the Mazda 2, but it's not manly enough for most Aussies. I've just selected a Mazda6 G25 Sport Wagon on the Mazda Aust site. It is listed at $39290 drive-away. Tesla Australia lists the Poverty Pack, 2024 Model Y RWD, but only has them with Premium Upholstery. It is listed at $60891 drive-away. Price-wise, the Mazda is $21k cheaper, but it only comes with cloth seats. We have leather in our current ICE vehicle & could do without the butt shock in summer & winter. The BLACK leather seats would be a searing pan in summer & a slab of ice in winter. The Mazda comes with roof rails, tasteful alloys & colossal luggage capacity. By contrast, the Tesla claims 455km of range, which is not achievable in the real world. Its %charge left indication for the battery is optimistic or fraudulent, and the plastic wheel covers are ugly but befitting the stale and bland styling. My contribution to reducing consumption is to avoid fizzy drinks, inflate my tyres with air, and continue with my dry powder fire extinguisher.
Sorry John, but your numbers for the Tesla are wrong. You have not factored in the degradation of the battery over those 10 years. That 430km range will be barely 340km in 10 years time (80% remaining capacity). No doubt that won't be the original owners problem - they would have traded the old donk in at 5 years. But reality still matters, and those batteries are not made of magic, they will degrade. The numbers for the Tesla are even worse than your +10% compared to the Mazda 2.
A friend of mine bought a ID4 last year. From snooping around in the car his "average" is ~25KWh/100k. He drove 60k kilometers in that time, replaced 2 aircons, this summer used 2 sets of tires, and his battery capacity dropped by like 5%. ;)
There is a 2020 Tesla Model 3 in QLD that just hit 300,000km and it has 89% of the original capacity. The batteries are very well managed in modern EVs.
@@foylemaIs’nt that nice… My 2011 3.2 ltr Diesel Pajero just ticked over 320k this week..but strangely I still have 100% usability of my 70ltr fuel tank.
This was a great exercise but there are many missing pieces that are worth considering. Many people with rooftop solar consider their total electricity consumption and adding an EV would be included in that calc, ideally. Keep in mind that EVs have developed to where they are (still somewhat early adoption) in a little over 10 years whereas the ICE vehicle industry has had roughly 100 years; things are changing quickly. For this reason, it is also not great to use averages because the available data is skewed by older technologies while not updated to account for the current and coming technology. One huge oversight in such exercises is not accounting for just how much energy is wasted along the way from mining to burning/conversion for electricity generation to grid/distribution to propelling vehicles. Burning fossil fuels to do all of this is actually quite inefficient, with as much as 80% or so lost to inefficiency/waste/heat. This is perhaps the most compelling argument for the push we are seeing to electrify as much stuff as possible. In theory, the efficiency gains alone can justify much of the enormous investment. Electric motors are inherently much more efficiency than combustion engines, for instance. You also compared two very different vehicles. The Model Y is larger and can seat up to 7 people and supposedly a SUV, for example, and it's often much less than $90k, at least in the US where they can be had for half that. Then there's also often tax incentives to offset the costs (whether you agree with them or not). Then again, we also tend to subsidize very mature and profitable industries such as the fossil fuel ones as well, similar to renewables but without the same logic. There are emissions other than CO2 to be concerned with. EVs tend to require less maintenance and batteries can be recycled even though we haven't implemented efficient ways of doing so. These are just points to consider but I also think it's a worthy exercise to do these comparisons and be as objective as possible. I drive a big SUV with a V8 btw.
Engineering Explained did a comparison and the EV broke even with the gas car somewhere between 2-3 years. That was on the US grid. I have heard that the Australian grid is greening up faster than the US. Also battery recycling is a thing. Look up "black mass". I wonder how this would have compared to a Chevy Bolt since they are closer in price.
Thank you for working this out. However, I would have preferred that you had done a base Model Y on the basis that anyone watching this who doesn't agree with you and who has a clue will say that you used the Model Y Performance to skew both vehicle price and range/efficiency. Basically, this was cherry-picked - not awfully bad, but I don't think it's being intellectually forthcoming. They employ similar tactics so I believe it would be readily apparent to them.
Another thing to consider is refueling vs charging time - you can fill up a Mazda in 5 minutes, an EV charge is at least 30 minutes even on a fast charger. Not exactly practical while travelling.
Yeah but the EVangelists seem to all need 30 minutes or more to pee and stretch their legs and get some coffee so it's just like owning an ICE!. I do all that and am back on the road in a maximum of 10 minutes and have 450 miles of range. No EV can come close to matching that. I have an EV as well I just leave it at home when I need to go somewhere more than 200 miles a day.
@@joecoolioness6399same here. I recently drove from sydney from Melbourne and back. I took my Audi Q5 rather than my BYD Atto 3. I don't want to stop 50 million times to charge, wait for charging to complete, or go further while hoping the chargers at the next stop are working. Sure it costs more to drive the Audi but it's more convenient and less stressful.
Part of that consideration is how often you actually do more than 300 miles a day. For most people it is not really a problem. If it is then get a diesel. In 20 years time almost everyone will choose the EV over the diesel.
I had a Hyundai Ionic5 inflicted on me over the weekend by my wife. It is a 3 year lease and was her "dream" so the saying, "it is cheaper to keep her" applies. I still have carburetor motorcycles that I use daily to commute to work. Yeh, work I work in aviation, so nothing is greener.
Why make up your own scope 2 number for electricity? It’s published by the department. And why exclude scope 3? That number is also provided. These numbers are also provided by state and there is a LOT of variation. You can apply the national average if you like, but difference in location is enough to swing your argument either way. But only when you are heavily stacking the argument against EV by excluding scope 3 emissions for petrol. Which are not insignificant like they are for electricity, and are also published by the department.
The big issue is what do you do with the 60k saving. If you invested it in an ISA or special savings account you could virtually wipe out depreciation which you haven't taken into account. The other thing you have failed to take into account is the CO2 of the recycling of the cars at end of life.
Over here in sheepshagastan, our factory's are struggling with out electricity supply, as the winter has actually been a normal very dry and cold, henceforth all the electrical vehicles aren't asked to save electricity, just closing down factory's, 😊😊.
I have a 10 kWh solar panel array with an 8kWh three phase inverter. I struggle during the winter months to generate sufficient electricity to cover the daily house consumption let alone to store and charge a 13 kW battery to full let alone put say 40 KW into a car. In July I saw 10 days where solar generation was less than 12 kW if I could add a screen shot I would do so to support with data from my system here in Victoria on the Mornington Peninsula.
I'm on the Yorke Peninsular, 150km North East of Adelaide, also with a largish solar array (no battery yet) 9.6kw panels, 8kw inverters. Today, my output was 30kwh, but yesterday barely 9kwh due to overcast. It's worse in winter with around 33% of the days featuring cloud cover. Just been pushed onto a time of use tariff (thank you for the meter upgrade) - peak time is 3PM to 1 AM and 6AM to 10AM. 55c'kwh.
Over July, our 11kw solar array produced 30% of our household needs. During summer, it produces way more than we need. The imbalance between supply and demand throughout the year is nuts.
@@Techo1329 - wow. It's almost like we don't all live in the same place and don't all pay the same amount for electricity. South Australia has been the most expensive state in Oz since like nearly forever - ever since the state Libs privatised it.
The calculation looks good to me. The problem is that it doesn’t work for me here in Denmark. The grid emissions here is 130 grams per kWh and that tips the scales towards the EV. I did it for my diesel car and I do emit 6 tons more over 10 years. I still don’t want one for all the other reasons.
Same for the coal used in the power stations that charge the EV. It's probably very similar in CO2 emissions. He also mentioned the fugitive emissions from mining coal and also ignored that in the calculations for the electricity production.
Your one obvious mistake was that the present grid CO2 intensity is 550g/kWh which is 8% less than your number. This changes your equivalence right now in favour of the Tesla. Projections estimate that the grid in 2050 will have an intensity of 100g. This blows your argument out of the water
Nope - grid intensity hasn't actually changed significantly since last year, - percentage of fossil fuels in the grid mix only went down slightly, so the figure he's using is still pretty applicable. Umm, I think he was talking about the comparison right now, not what might (or might not) happen in 25years?
Solar is completely capable of charging your ev for average daily use of 41km./8200wH and powering your home in Australia. A battery in your car can even support the grid in high use 6pm time segments as well as take in extra grid production when too much electricity is being produced. You get paid for both. Almost every day progress is being made. Vehicle to load and vehicle to grid are steps forward on the path to the future without fossil fuels as a main energy source.
how much co2 is emitted to refine fuel and bring it to the gas station though? EV makes no financial sense to me, nor does hybrid so I got an ICE 2 months ago. And if we consider purchase cost, we should also consider energy cost. Even your own solar isn't free, the panels, inverters and home battery have a finite life so I would amortize the cost over the warranty duration.
If you compare a 150cc scooter to a Hummer EV, the scooter is much better for the environment. We need to get away from electric bikes and smart cars and use the environmentally friendly 3 ton UTEs for short commutes and daily chores.
Not sure but shouldn't you factor in CO2 for the extraction, refining and distribution of the petrol. The electricity production would include that in the government figures for coal presumably. Also, the numbers assume no increase in electricity generation from co2 neutral sources which we should be aiming for and could be encouraged with more incentives, batteries or even nuclear power. That withstanding, the figures are closer than most people think.
Great breakdown of the issue. If you could be botherer to polish it off, you could include the impact of using money saved buying Mazda 2 to go "off grid" with mega solar plus battery storage
I have been saying the same (without the supporting data as demonstrated here) for 10 years. Ive been austrocized (see what i did there?) by my latte sipping ex-friends and now only associate with diesel heads. Thanks for the video John, as always exceptional.
So you compare 500+ horsepower, 3.8 sec 0-60 AWD SUV with 900+ liters of cargo space with a Mazda 2? Why? Why not against some Audi Q6 4.2 liter gasoline? Or Range Rover? Or on the other hand - why not Renault Zoe or Nissan Leaf? Or Fiat 500 EV vs the Mazda 2?
Yawn. Try to keep up: Both are roughly equivalent on planet-saving potential. One is far easier to deploy to the masses. The other is the most popular EV in the world... Not all comparisons have to be dollar-for-dollar or on the basis of being in the same segment. (This is a very grown-up concept. Don't let it trouble you.)
@@AutoExpertJC well, dear grown up agenda pusher, you either compare apples with apples, or compare stuff, disrespectful of specs, if it fits your narrative. If you were the first to play this game cherry picking would not have been invented. Unlucky you - no "first ever" award for your stunt. P.S. trying to be smart does not work every time.
@@AutoExpertJC yes. I look in a mirror sometimes, and that is what i see. I drive 50-70 000 km yearly since 2010. Between 2010 and 2020 i have driven 3 consecutive brand new Mazda 6 Wagons. But my family grew and lately i have even used 520 liter top box. It burns 8-9 l per 100 km, not 6.5. So when my last Mazda 6 Wagon become 250 000 km old i had to change it. I got Telsla model Y. Or i should get 2x Mazda 2? Or Mazda 2 + trailer? Now i've got 20 kWp rooftop solar and 65 kWh batteries, and i charge from solar day or night at least 9 months yearly (winter is worse, sure). On top of that my job is to deal with health consequences of tailpipe emissions, of which you are somewhat quiet. Why is that? You are aware that obese people are even more likely to get cancer or cardiovascular disease, aren't you? Mirror? So what you preach is total BS for a lot of use cases. Compare apples with apples, or quit talking for sciense.
@@AutoExpertJC You're clearly not a grown-up when you compare a city car with an SUV. You're grasping at straws trying to make EVs look bad. You can't compare different car segments' emissions, I thought you were grown-up enough to understand this :P You may as well compare Australia's #1, the Ford Ranger to the #6 Toyota Corolla and then go "look how much worse the CO2 is on the Ranger vs Corolla". Well DUH! Because as you say: "Not all comparisons have to be dollar-for-dollar or on the basis of being in the same segment." It's just as pointless. If someone is replacing their ICE SUV they not going to go buy a small car like a Mazda 2 unless their life situation has changed drastically. And you also completely ignored the emissions from extracting, refining and transporting petrol or diesel. Not everyone has a dirty coal fired grid like Australia, and the energy mix is getting greener every year. ICE cars will not change much in emissions. Manufactures struggle already to meet new demands resulting in these tiny engines and cars that are extremely dull to drive.
Question. Does your equation take into account the extraction and transport of coal? Fuel oil and refining? Shipping? Or does that take us too far down the rabbit hole?
As a wannabe tree hugging hippie i have a couple of points : - 1. Why didnt you use the figures from the cheaper Tesla model Y RWD - if you did I'd guess that the 10% difference would evaporate. 2. If everybody goes and buys a Mazda 2 - the CO2 figures are locked in for the next 10 years +, But improvements to the grid over the next 10 years ie less coal burning and more solar farms, wind, and batteries and pumped hydro etc. could improve the CO2 rate burnt by the running of the Tesla. 3. The changing nature of work, and the greying of the population, means more people are home during the day - where they can charge their Tesla from the grid when its green - I watch the Aemo dashboard and know there's a lot of green evergy available in the middle of the day. 4. Lastly, Teslas in Australia use LFP batteries - which are far less likely to catch fire, and when they do, its not as intense as a Lithium Ion fire.
I'm not a massive fan of Mazda myself, but they seem to be the only manufacturer still trying to innovate with internal combustion engines. The other companies just put all their eggs in the EV and hybrid basket because they can claim to be innovating without actually inventing anything new.
@@Patrick-857I think Toyota too. It's just that Toyota are far more conservative in terms of engine design, erring on the side of robustness. They still innovate, but are less willing to push the envelope lest the deliver a shit quality power plant.
From this I take the following: - SUVs are unnecessarily thirsty, whether EV or ICE. - Australia’s grid is very dirty meaning the green potential of EVs in Australia is not currently of value.
Redid the math for New Zealand grid: using 130g of co2 per kwh, found lower figure but still show a big diff vs AU grid; got 3.5t +7t=10.5t of co2 for the tesla. so half the mazda 2 here in NZ Really depend of your electricity grid. Anyway got an hybrid toyota rav4 not going to change, happy with it don't need to charge, didn't burst into flames so far. This is quite dishonest to compare a $90k vs $30k one, should be same budget same size-ish. Like Nissan leaf vs Mazda 3 Doesn't change the facts around EV battery safety, shit electronics in most etc Also this need to be run not just for 10y but for the entire life of the car.
but you still haven't accounted for CO2 production to mine, refine and transport oil. One of the biggest contributors he purposely omitted to stack his numbers.
@@pizzaearthpancakesandother2549 As long as it’s not the toilet of a parlour where you sell that disgusting thing you call pizza. You’d need a concrete drill to get through the cheese clogging.
@simoncrooke1644 Fair play, I shouldn't drink, comment and post without first proof reading. My bad, thanks for the catch. I now hang my head in shame.
How can you carry out an analysis of CO2 emissions from EVs versus ICE vehicles without including CO2 produced during the extraction and processing oil into diesel/petrol???
I almost bought a Mazda 2, because I have had a Mazda 3 for over 20 years, fantastic cars both. But I ended up getting a VW Polo R-Line, purely because the ride was much better, in my opinion. I get about 2.5 times the MPG and only emit a third of the CO2, compared to the 20 year old Mazda 3. There you go, thats my real contribution to the environment for 2024 🙂, jobs a goodun.
It would be a good idea to factor in the amount of CO2 produced in getting the watts to the power point compared to petrol to the bowser. I dare say that would significantly skew the figures in favour of the EV.
And what about the 1500 oil tankers driving around the country with 15 tonnes of petrol to deliver to petrol stations Surely he didn’t miss that key part . Ignorance
@@sheepyracing2774 also the co2 generated in the extraction, refining, and in the case of Australia the transportation from Singapore. Over 90% of our finished fuel is imported.
@@brettsymons7172 I didn’t know that . Jesus . He really left that out didn’t he. I didn’t add the extraction part as EVs require extraction for lithium too .. but the transportation should have been included in his math as electricity doesn’t need transportation
@@sheepyracing2774 I think he included the full CO2 cost in manufacturing of the battery in his calculations. I assume that would include the CO2 generated in mining of the raw materials. Also he is giving us a snapshot of the moment. The amount of additional renewable energy that will be added to the grid over the next 10 years will be astronomical. Regarding the exploration, construction, extraction, refining, transportation of fuel, I would assume that would have to add 20% to the emissions bill. Also not to mention the environmental cost of getting workers to and from site. On an unrelated topic. Locally generated electricity helps with Australia’s terms of trade. We export $$$ for fuel. Not to mention the cleaner air in the cities.
Hey John, thanks for this video, very interesting. Your Tesla figures include the energy delivery mechanism. But with the Mazda, did you consider the CO2 produced in order to deliver 10 years worth of fuel to the vehicle?
I would have also included the tires for both. The ev tires need to be so much stronger and cost more to produce etc they also wear a lot quicker due to the weight if the car, so more carbon and a lot more micro plastics in to the environment
You have forgotten the effect of the additional EV weight on the road. Heavier vehicles wear roads faster, and there is a notable Co2 impact. All the machines and products have a Co2 cost, being generous to EVs, they are destroying roads 50% faster than ICE vehicles.
@@HighFell looked up the tesla curb weights, they're no heavier than ICE cars/cuvs, so i'm not buying that argument except for true ICE Suv's where the equivalent would be a heck of a lot heavier in EV
@@18_rabbit like for like EV versions of vehicles are substantially heavier than ICE equivalent. Surely you are not arguing different? John’s video compares a Mazda 2 with a Tesla model Y. The Tesla is nearly a tonne heavier, it’s same right across vehicle types. If you compared a Ford Focus or Mazda 3 with the Y, the Y is 500kg more, 1/3rd heavier. Batteries are heavy. Of course you can always find a lardy ICE vehicle too and that’s fair enough, they are also wearing out roads at a more rapid rate than lighter vehicles.
I’d love to see a more apples for apples comparison maybe a Toyota Camry hybrid v a byd seal and factor in the battery being used for storage after its life in a car and the recycling cost for both vehicles. There’s no doubt that in an ideal world where power grids are renewable are powering manufacturing evs would be better for the environment but that far from reality. For me we need to see evs staying on the road for 15 years and as many as possible batteries being utilised as storage so more solar can be utilised during the evening peak even if they’re only 50% capacity at that point. Be interesting to see if that actually happens as time moves on because if we aren’t trying to extract ever ounce of usable value out of these batteries that were produced using fossil fuel then it’s all counter productive. But hey we’ve created a world based on marketing over science so who knows?
It's ironic I bought my EV for equanomic reasons as I figured that the trend of the price of petrol was only headed up. As for other reasons, yelling about "climate change" while trying as hard as possible to bury the raw data doesn't fill me with confidence about the claims. Another thing is the ever increasing complexity of doing anything but the most basic maintenance on a new petrol car myself. I kept my last car 13 years from new.
That Mazda 2 with a high compression, dedicated, liquid injection, LPG engine would emit 10 to 15% less CO2 again than the petrol version, with no loss of performance. It would else emit less NOx and virtually zero particulate matter. The Aus LPG conversion rebates only finished a decade ago, and then the whole infrastructure was allowed to implode. One can't help but wonder if the billions spent on the newest government golden child, the EV, will end up with the same fate?
LPG helped the transition from carburettors and points ignition to fuel injection and better ignitions along with catalytic convertors etc. Not the great advantages there were back then. I would still have an LPG car for the clean running but the conversion costs are not economical nowadays. My XF did about 18,000 ks to break even on a $1600 conversion cost in 1991 and it paid it self off about 3 or 4 times over after that. When gas was cheap and petrol was dear, I saved about 60% and about 30% when gas was dear and petrol was cheap. Oil used to stay clean on the dipstick for 8000ks. My current car, a Holden Cruze running on mainly E10 is about the same condition on the dipstick at 12000ks thanks to the fuel and the engine design.
@@rjbiker66 In New Zealand in the 1980s we had Compressed natural gas (CNG) which could be added to a petrol vehicle with a tank in the boot.I had it in a Ford Cortina and there was an art to changing fuels on the go. From petrol to CNG you would switch the fuel off until the carburettor ran dry then turn on the gas. Obviously primitive by today’s standards but it worked well. Slowly died in NZ however my car was stolen before this.
Your arguments are correct. I have just done a research report on the characteristics of the sun's Global Horizontal Irradiation which applies to PV solar and if one wanted to charge an EV overnight, let's start with energy figures that may differ depending on individual circumstances. For example, assuming a household wants to have rooftop PV solar and a storage battery, and use the battery for providing power for the household, the 10A power capacity for an electric shower, cater for the hot-water system, capacity for split system heat pumps, charging the EV. In terms of energy, let's assume 13 kWh for the household (daily), 7 kWh for charging the EV overnight (for an average of 50 km daily range), one might contemplate using a 20 kWh battery, or let's say 2 x Tesla Powerwall 3 systems in parallel for something similar. To charge the battery, or let's say to keep it topped up by taking advantage of charging when the sun shines, the PV solar system needs to have a capacity of around 10 kW, to charge the battery as quickly as possible and to leave some energy for the household while the sun is shining. Now, the problem is as I see it, to put a 10 kW PV solar system on the roof, one might need close to 30 panels which raises the question as to how many rooftops in Australia have the area to mount so many panels. While in the UK the price per kWh for battery systems varies from 500-750 Pounds per kWh, the Telsa 3 power wall being at the lower end of the scale and also very innovate as it has capacity for two-way EV charging communication allowing ESP and USP (that is the EV providing the power for the household in case of grid outage). My estimate is that a system with the feature set described above, including the multi-way and a few dedicated string-inverters, the software control and BMS, room for future expansion, ease of installation, and user-friendly and reliable operation will not only cost between $25,000-$35,000, but the number of PV panels required will not fit on most rooftops.
1) large model Y compared to a tiny ICE car (MG4 would be fairer) 2) no CO2 allowed for extraction, refining and transporting of fuel, oils and add all those filters, so you need to add 40% to your ICE car. 3) grid is getting greener and it's already greener than you think because much of the solar is behind the meter so it isn't in your numbers 4) V2G will reduce emissions 5) at the end of 10 years a LFP battery has another 10 years of grid service left in it so it continues to reduce grid emissions where as you ICE car is blowing smoke and ready for scraping 6) batteries are getting far greener and are using less CO2 to make year on year 7) so no allowance at all for solar charging is not kosher either, you need some sort of allowance as 60% of EV owners do have solar and those that don't are on cheap plans that prioritise renewable energy by making it cheaper to charge at times when renewable energy is plentiful.
@@rattusfinkus RE: point 2), in regard to adding 40%, you also need to add a range of percentages to the EV operation. For example the constant change of tyres, the damage done to the road, the ultimate recycling of the battery, the need to replace the EV with the slightest damage to the battery, the enormous damage done in case of an EV fire, the quick 10 year turnaround and disposal of EVs all adds further CO2 as well.
@@Ernst12 where do you get 10 years from, MG offers lifetime warranty on the battery, power electronics and motor in Thailand and in Australia they off 10 years/ 250,000km. CATL has truck batteries with 1.5 million KMs warranty.
Off topic slightly. Governments and power companies are getting a bit miffed about the idea of paying customers for power they supply to the grid and actually want customers to pay for it instead. So If you’re thinking about getting solar Do Not follow the usual model of supply your excess to the grid. Work back the other way and off grid your home as much as possible and only sip from the grid what you need to charge your batteries when there’s not enough solar. If you have an electrical engineer spec it out correctly and use DC capable appliances to cut the need for inverters , also program the system to only connect to the grid during the cheapest times and not peak not only would you reduce your alleged carbon footprint but actually reduce grid emissions by not simply wasting all that solar power that does absolutely nothing but give grid operators a headache.
oi, u just gave me a micro headache ! Here in 'murica' we dn't deal with all that, bcuz we're kinda stuck in the stone age here still, in so many ways.
Thanks to MANSCAPED for sponsoring today's video! Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping with promo code "AEJC" at manscaped.com/autoexpert ! #FathersDay
Sorry,
you can do it again cause it is completely wrong based on our research cent KIT and Munich University who had done that already multiple times.
AND bad for australia: It will not take that long till the amount of lithium will have been pulled out of the earth and the recycling figure from the german recycling industry are over 93% are recycled and used again, not down cycled.
Lithium will be reused on the material level so looks quite good cause we have already used one lfp for over 10 years and now when it should have gone into the recycling the university wants to get the cells to do further investigations and cycling cause that battery should be testet how long that outdated model could last beyonf those 2750 cycles we had used it before. 2 7 5 0 is an equivalent (based on a 60 kWh of 2750 x 400 km = 1.100.000 km
I guess that even the old mercedes did not get close to that - at least those robust model from the 80s like the taxis W123 and W124.
John, I always find your videos insightful and informative. However on this one you don’t seem to have been even handed in your analysis. Regarding the ICE vehicle you haven’t included the emissions relating to the exploration, extraction, refining, transportation and delivery of fuel (filling station) to the Mazda 2 to enable a true comparison.
Things to also consider, the EV battery will be fairly worn after 10 years and battery replacement incurs another hit of co2 penalty factored in for this. Another thing to think about on the safety front is that put simply, a two tonne car takes longer to stop from speed, when the kiddies run out, than a one tonne car, due to physics..... :-) Nice One @John Cadogan
GO SEARCH
CO2 DROUGHT
COMPARING THOSE TWO VEHICLES IS LIKE COMPARING A ROTTEN APPLE TO A PEANUT.
THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD OR NEED A BIGGER VEHICLE AREN'T GOING TO CHOOSE THE MAZDA SH!!TBOX
Government solution: 200% sales tax on Mazda 2
Or the government could SIN tax the EVs 😮
@@toml8142The government just doesn't want anyone driving - per km tax for EV and per litre tax for liquid fuel cars
Sneaky, but the opposite is happening. The US, EU, Canada and Turkey have imposed import taxes of 17-40% and up to 100% (US) on Chinese BEVs due to government subsidies being provided to lower prices.
" Being a dumbshit" is also a prerequisite to become a politician in my opinion
Yeah - otherwise you fail the first interview. IQ needs to be under the room temp in deg C
A couple of old mates became politicians after university. Most of us just said, “what a shame. He had so much potential” maybe the potential was just a cunning act
ahem, "a corrupt, lying dumbshit"
ahem "being a lying, corrupt dumbshit" if you don't mind
In politics, ignorance is not necessarily a disadvantage.
Minor correction to these figures - you need to include CO2 in production and transport of petrol, which adds about 30% (less for diesel). I realize you've left out some production emissions around generating electricity from coal as well, but best to include both for a more solid comparison.
But if he added CO2 production for the refining and transport of oil, his numbers wouldn't show that ICE cars produce 10% less CO2. And if he chose to choose comparable cars with more realistic mileage efficiency, it would be worse again. The ONLY way he can support his argument is to used unrealistic numbers, flawed logic and dishonest tactics. He's made that abundantly clear.
@@DIYMick yes starting to lose any ounce of respect I had for him because of this absolute nonsense
@@cross8manroberts119 yep. I didn’t mind his channel. I thought he was tough but fair. But this report has shone a light on his true motivations. He’s not stupid, so these omissions are 100% intentional
@@DIYMick Argonne labs in the US have found the well to tank process for motor fuel to be 80% to 85% efficient. This would add about 20% to the CO2 emissions for the Mazda.
He also said he didn't add the GHGe emissions from fugitive emissions in mining the coal used to generate the electricity for the Tesla (about 5%). His figures also likely didn't include extra CO2 from grid losses between the coal power plant and wherever the Tesla is charged (about 10%), or due to losses in the charger (about 5%). It probably also doesn't include the CO2 from the manufacture of solar cells and wind turbines either.....
He also said himself that the Mazda wasn't equivalent to the Tesla, but he used it to demonstrate that if you really wanted to save CO2, you could buy the smaller, cheaper, Mazda (which also produced less CO2 during manufacture btw), instead of the Tesla.....
@@DIYMick This guy has become a clown show for the petrol industry and a traitor. The biggest oil producers are Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela. Think about it.
In essence you are saying Chris Bowen is a total bell end …?
I love him. He's perfect.
Just to disambiguate, there's a difference between a bell end and a bellend.
Personal opinion. Personal opinion. Personal opinion.
@@ScottMurrayBestFamilyCars thanks 🔔end 👍
We all know which one @@ScottMurrayBestFamilyCarsis
Inarguable
I purchased a Mazda 2 on your recommendation back in 2016.
Awesome little car. Highway driving it would get 4.9l per 100ks.
Traded it in for an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifolio. Even the Alfa would get 8.1L per 100 highway.
I bought a second hand Mazda 323 back in 92 for about a hundred quid and ran it into the ground for another 4 years and scrapped it for 70 quid all I had to buy for it was tyres and brake pads, cracking little cars and always have been
With Alfa Romeo you also need to add into the account the CO2 your car mechanic is using to get to their shop to keep your Alfa running 😁
@@1888sparky My big ass BMW 520D does under 4l per 100km on the motorway, diesel is the way to go, a lot less CO2 also.
@@1888sparky a tesla model 3 does 0.05L/100km … half a litre equivalent to go 100km on an 8ckWh ev plan .. I hope you feel better now 😆😂😂
@@sheepyracing2774 Get a zero out of your 0.05/100 and multiply by 2 (unless your gas in Australia is $3/L ). And recall, the video is about overall CO2 emission, not the cost of running on subsidized plans. As I read, average electricity rates are in 20-30 c/kwh range, so if you paid market electricity rate, you would be paying around the cost of 3 liters of gas per 100 km
I'm a feral bush baby who grew up "chasing butterflies off cliffs with fascination overload". I like the natural environment and have grown up working to protect it.
So, so happy I've held on to my old civic in spite of the ev misinformation.
Keeping old cars going is the most environmentally beneficial. But for comparing new cars, EVs are way more beneficial in EVERY way.
@@Electric666s😂 I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t watch the video. But I suspect you’re the person living in fantasy land that John mentions….
Correct on first part, @@Electric666s
@@someonethatwatchesyoutube2953 when you have a chance, please go through the comments discussing the points about many of the assumptions that John gets quite wrong. He even contradicts himself on the video. It isn’t fantasy land.
I would purchase an ev if..... they cost as little as a basic ice car, if the batteries lasted more than 10 years (my car is 2009 and still has all it's horses after manufacturers maintenance) if thoses batteries could be recycled to the highest % available comparable to lead acid batteries and the rest of the cars materials. And the biggest if.. if thoses that were buying them new weren't hypocritical consumerists that replaced their car every time the wind shifted fashion trends and then turn around and say their doing it for the environment. Sorry but you can claim all sorts of benefits but buying a new car, especially those early in there conception such as ev'S, when perfectly fuctioning ice cars are on the road is stupid and regressive. Oh and don't forget, if the power used to charge them wasn't from, taadaaaaa, coal! Sure I could go solar but cars have this ability to travel away from said solar... and I live in a rental. Ya think a landlord is gonna give af about that, there to busy hiking rents.
Stop falling for greenwashing by consuming, or, remove any environmental argument as a reason to buy an ev. It's a fashion and will be until people only buy them because the old ice one has disintegrated. As for costs up front do the math and at some point, if you travel low kms or below, the money spent on an ev could buy a functional ice car with money left over to give to an environmental charity, cover fuel and maintenance costs annually. By the time you reach equivalence with an ev the batteries on the ev poop themselves and more, much more $ is required to move. Meanwhile for a fraction of that cost the ice transmission can be replaced (if you don't know how to use and maintain them) the engine can be retuned etc, all without the mining to creat a whole new battery pack (and if it's a Tesla basically everything else that breaks down 10ks after driving off the lot)
To top it how can it be more environmentally friendly (at this stage of development) when virgin environments have to be destroyed because now there's a greater need for elements we didn't really use much of in the past. Yes, more steel, lead, and all the regular elements in ice cars are still being mined but exhaust old mines and recycle to keep them going. Don't go looking for fresh ground to destroy. You can have all the atmospheric balance between CO2, O2, N etc but if there's no land to live and grow off.....? Oh and I forgot. I can put my ice car in storage for 2 years and still rely on it to start, an evs batteries start dying as soon as there made so if not hooked up to a battery management system they probably won't even charge after 2 years of no u and then need to be replaced. That is if the ev hasn't started a fire.
Great calculations, I do agree charging an EV off the grid is not a great idea, although a couple of points have not been considered:
- You need to add the CO2 emitted when gas and diesel is produced and transported, add 30% for a gas car and 24% for a diesel.
- Most EV;s sold in Australia are made in China (including Tesla), these mostly use Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries (LFP), which have much lower average production emissions of 56 kgCO2/kWh
- In 2023, the emissions intensity from electricity generation in Australia was around 549g of C02/kWh, 650g was closer to 2020 figures (642g), these figures are trending down over time with the addition of renewables.
Also not accounting for the fact that it's incredibly easy to write off a Model Y and then you have to start that over again, or if it needs a battery replacement under warranty (which is hardly unheard of) - in which case you have to add another 7 tons.
And there are heaps of 20 and even 30 year old Mazdas still running around which simply will not happen with EVs. They will be replaced with newer ones.
It all depends on battery tech. If it’s the same shite batteries, at these prices (adjusted for inflation), the EVs will be disposable. However, the electric motor is extremely reliable and pretty hard to kill. Not that much that can go wrong with them.
Exactly. A 20 year old Mazda, that has been well maintained, will still be just as efficient as it was when new. Can't say or expect the same from that Tesla, in fact the Tesla will have been consigned to the breakers long before it gets to 20 years of age - because battery degradation and replacement cost (if it's even available) will be too expensive to be worthwhile.
planned obsolescence - pity the utopian central planners can't see that one - the corporate bean counters are right in the thick of it.
@@meuknowwho7041 theoretically yes, but a lot of EV motors have been replaced - and the bottom line is that the battery is the most important part of the vehicle and once it's no longer serviceable that is realistically the end of life for that car.
@@mahcooharper9577 yeah that was my point. The battery. Of course you’re going to get dud motors. But generally, in most electric machines, the motors are very durable. If you know electric motors, especially brushless, you know that there isn’t much that can go wrong with them if wired etc properly with a good controller and hall sensors
1. Petrol Cars
Oil Extraction and Processing:
Drilling and Extraction: ~15-30 kg CO2 per barrel of crude oil.
Refining: ~30-40 kg CO2 per barrel of crude oil.
Transportation: ~10-15 kg CO2 per barrel of crude oil.
A barrel of crude oil yields about 72 liters of petrol.
CO2 per liter of petrol (upstream): ~1.8-2.0 kg CO2.
Combustion in Vehicles:
Combustion Emissions: ~2.31 kg CO2 per liter of petrol burned.
Total Lifecycle Emissions (Petrol Car):
Average annual driving distance (Australia): ~13,000 km.
Fuel efficiency (average petrol car): ~8 liters/100 km.
Annual fuel consumption: ~1,040 liters.
Annual CO2 emissions (combustion only): ~2.4 tons CO2.
Upstream emissions (extraction, refining, transport): ~2.0 tons CO2.
Total Annual CO2 Emissions for Petrol Car: ~4.4 tons CO2.
2. Electric Vehicles (EVs)
Battery Manufacturing:
Battery production emissions: ~50-75 kg CO2 per kWh of battery capacity.
Typical EV battery size: ~60 kWh.
Total battery production emissions: ~3.0-4.5 tons CO2.
Electricity Generation for Charging:
Australian grid average CO2 intensity: ~0.7 kg CO2 per kWh (depends on the energy mix).
EV efficiency: ~15-20 kWh per 100 km.
Annual energy consumption: ~2,000-2,600 kWh (for 13,000 km).
Annual CO2 emissions from charging: ~1.4-1.8 tons CO2.
Total Lifecycle Emissions (EV):
Battery production (spread over an assumed 10-year lifespan): ~0.3-0.45 tons CO2 per year.
Annual CO2 emissions from charging: ~1.4-1.8 tons CO2.
Total Annual CO2 Emissions for EV: ~1.7-2.25 tons CO2.
Comparison Summary:
Petrol Car: ~4.4 tons CO2 per year.
Electric Vehicle: ~1.7-2.25 tons CO2 per year (assuming Australia's current energy mix).
Who cares about C02 emissions? It has no effect on the climate and the plants love it!
You’ve awakened my PTSD from the lectures I took during analytical methods lectures studying civil engineering at uni. Despite the fact that I’m wrapped in a cold sweat this is great content John. You’re doing the work that no one else is prepared to do. When you boil the numbers down it’s ever more clear that EVs really are just greenwashing and virtue signalling done by those who knit yogurt and wear lentil based clothing.
There is plenty of people doing the work but no one will report on it except the oil companies and when they do it gets considered about as accurate as the tobacco industry's research into lung cancer .
Lots of mining & metal processing groups have crunched the numbers from all sorts of angles to prove without a question 100% EV can never ever happen .
I could tell you that VW cancelled an entire range of EVs back in 2018 because they could not a guaranteed cobalt supply contract for the estimated life of the model range .
Mercedes had a similar problem with Niobium so they changed the entire drive train .
Then there is thallium , another metal that is crucial for the high efficiency electric motors, they don't call them "Rare Earth Metals" so they can bump the ticket price up higher .
😂
@@I-have-a-brain_and-use-it "crunched the numbers from all sorts of angles to prove without a question 100% EV can never ever happen" Really! have you not seen what has happened in the last 50 years with battery & motor technology! They are already here, they are happening, and like everything else in the technology space, they will get better, lighter, smaller, cheaper and more efficient, like computers, phones, laptops, tablets. John @AutoExpertJC is not saying they are not viable ever, he is just saying the numbers don't currently stack up as much as they are hyped by certain groups now.
A few TH-camrs shouting into the ether and a handful of scientists publishing reports on scientific websites that no one will even find online let alone read does not balance out governments enforcing EVs as all new vehicle purchases, with £17.5k fines per ICE/PHEV/HEV by 2030 in the UK.
If you’re reading this you already know what a stupid decision this is but it’s going to happen unless a lot more people refuse to buy EVs. The market will dictate the future. All the big car makers are pulling away from EV production already. If the consumer refuses EVs then it may change but only if they reject EVs out of hand.
it takes 7.5 kWh of electricity to refine one gallon of gasoline... this guy is clueless
This also does not account for the all particulate matter that ends up in the environment from higher wear and tear of tires on heavier vehicles (and the roads they mangle up more), so the environmental impact of heavy EVs is even worse.
- roads are simply conduits for petrochemicals to reenter nature - one micro particle at a time - may as well add all the shopping bags to the mix, fish food within 50 years..
Or the smog generated by ice, and health related effects of that. And the Tyre thing is mute as many ice weigh the same as EV's
@@mawhim ,
mute?
moot 👍🏻
@@mawhimMute? ROTFL.
@@mawhimFor any given type and size of car, the electric version weighs more... a lot more, as shown by this very comparison, and if you want to give any electric car the same range as its ICE version, the difference would be even greater.
It is absurd to say that some ICE cars weigh the same as some EVs... of course they do, but take everyone out of their current ICE car and put them into an equivalent sized and specced EV and the average weight of vehicles will increase significantly.
It's always a fair comparison when you compare a hatchback to a top spec'd SUV 🤦
Hi John. It doesnt matter if you have Solar or not. When charging your EV the power is not going into the grid. The grid has to replace this power. This will be at the average grid carbon intenity of 680 g/kwhr (NSW), close to your estimate of 650 BTW.
Have you wondered why electricity retailers these days are now paying a pittance for feed in power from PV systems? It's because on even moderately days when PV systems are producing, the grid has an excess of PV power.....to the point where the wholesale price of power often goes negative. For someone like myself with a decent sized PV system....economically it makes sense to direct excess power from my system into a home battery or EV rather than sell it into the grid for 5c/kWh.
John a few things...
1. if you're with a retailer such as Amber which passes through wholesale pricing, it is cheaper to charge in the middle of a sunny day when feed in tariffs are sometimes negative,
2. it doesn't matter where you charge during the day. Whether or not you charge at home or at work (apart from transmission losses) the net effect is the same. If you charge from home, you neighbours get less of your excess solar. If you charge at work, you neighbours get the solar that otherwise would've gone into your EV and you just get the electrons somewhere else from the grid. However, apart from transmission losses, there is no difference between charging at home and charging at work from a carbon dioxide perspective.
3. Hence the answer is to charge at work (or at home on non work days eg: weekends) during a sunny day on a plan which transfers wholesale electricity pricing such as amber when prices are really low and when sometimes the feed in tariff is even negative.
4. charging from the grid in the middle of a sunny day and helping to stabilize the grid when feed in tariffs are actually sometimes negative is actually a very environmentally conscious way to charge.
I was listening to the radio this morning
3AW
Ampol is pulling out of EV Charging Stations
92 have been installed
Out of 300.
Not going any further with the target of 300.
Its impossible to make money out of it. The cars dont turn over fast enough and you can only make a few bucks per vehicle.
@@MrkBO8 I pass a Ampol with Ev charging station
I might see one or two EV Vehicles charging
Once every few weeks
I pass this service station 8 times a day
Monday through Friday
And always empty
Actually I have seen a Tow Truck with a Tesla on the back
Into the charging station 🚉 🤣
It's not ampol it's Exxon. Their livery is identical. When you watch American and even English utubes the rebadged Caltex stations to ampol have probably reduced their tax to zero again this year!
@@johnmcelholum4203 only going on what was said on 3AW
That's odd, According to The Sydney Morning Herald business company section (August 19, 2024), Fuel giant Ampol to miss target for electric vehicle charging bays...
"Ampol, which operates 1800 service stations nationally and Brisbane’s Lytton oil refinery, on Monday said it was making progress expanding its network of on-the-go electric charging infrastructure to cater for the growing number of motorists buying electric vehicles, with 92 charging bays now at 41 locations."
I think 3AW is misleading its listeners... 🤨 But that's nothing new is it 🤭
I decided to respond BEFORE I read any other comments. I had reason to do a CO2 impact review based on the UK grid and average milage a year ago so am familiar with the field.
I want to comment on a couple of things but first I want to make it clear that your conclusion that small vehicles are better is the key one, thats where incentives / disincentives need to be targeted.
Comment 1. You should take home roof top solar into account, this should be done for the whole system not an individual case (as you highlighted, allocating carbon free electricity to a specific activity is false). Home solar replaces grid electricity (regardless of what it is used for) so is in effect its boosting the grid CO2 performance. I googled it and in Australia roof top solar generates about 11.2% of the electricity (other numbers are probably availible but I am running with that for this post). So grid = 650g/kWh for 89% electricity used solar at zero for 11% (ignoring CO2 impact of the panels, wires, etc) so a better figure used for domestic elctricity CO2 intesity in Australia should be about 580g/kWh (89% of the 650g). That changes the TESLA performance to 23t, down from 25t originally calculated.
Comment 2. Todays grid is not what the grid will be over 10 years. The grid is lowering its CO2 over time. This should be acknowledged clearly. You could/should do an assumption for this. Again that would benefit the Tesla example. (I will leave that to others to do some maths on that).
Comment 3. We can re-calcualte using a smaller EV instead of the lardy Tesla. This is so important. Lardy giant EVs are the missed opportunity. A "50kW Mazda 2 EV" would show a substantial CO2 reduction. Say it gets 0.166 kWh/km the calc for 10 years would be 150,000 km x 0.166 x 580g/kWh = 14.4t CO2. On top of that there would be a saving in production CO2 with a lighter EV battery (88 x 50 / 1,000) 4.4t. Therefore a small EV will be around 18.8t CO2 over 10 years based on the current domestic electricity CO2 intensity - a saving over the petrol Mazda 2 of 3.7t or a saving of 4.2t over the Tesla.
Comment 4. Cars last longer than 10 years. The average lifespan of EVs is uncertain given they have not been about for long. They represent a new tech so we can expect the early EVs to have a lower average lifespan than current petrol cars, but current and future ones will quickly catch up and we should not assume they will be substantially different in future. One thing is for sure, just like petol cars they will last longer than 10 years on average.
If anyone has read this far, well done. You can have a gold star.
The big take home is "lardy" and I 100% agree a Mazda 2 EV would be a clear winner and what EVs should be instead of electrified Chevy suburban porkers like the EV9 etc. I own a Holden Cruze. No fancy doors or other junk. I just want a similar car that has an electric drivetrain and I can even wind down my windows, not full of gimmicky junk that breaks down and cost a fortune to fix and all the stupid nanny state rubbish like lane keep etc. No money in that so it will never happen. EVs are marketed in the luxury car mindset.
Yes ! but your point doesn’t help sell manscaping products now does it 😉👍
@@rogerpearson9081 In Europe we should start to see more small EVs coming out from main car makers. They are being forced to sell a minimum number of EVs now. To do that they will need cheap small & some basic EVs to get numbers up at smallest loss. At same time small ICE cars will come off the market as focus from car makers will be on getting best margin from the ICE cars.
We need basic simple EVs along lines of your old Cruze.
That manual Mazda 2 I drove for the best part of two weeks was an absolute hoot. Best family car I've driven in years, for the price.
Best family car?? You must have a midget family, because my sons who are almost teens dont even fit into the back seat of the mazda 2 with my drivers seat in driving position as a 6"2 dude. Theyre both well above 5 foot, but the Mazda 2 space is tiny and they fit just fine into a Hyundai Getz or Suzuki Ignis
Hey John, where do you factor in the CO2 emissions for each litre of fossil fuel produced? Pumping it out of the ground and supply chain to the petrol station? If that's added, what does that do to your modelling? The same would apply to emissions related to making electricity too. Would that make a material difference, either way, on your results and conclusions?
19:04 John, real world Mazda2 owner here.
Our own 2 went to 6.0lt/100 average for the first 10k and then settled and resolutely stuck 5.9lt/100 for the remained of the time we had the car to 90k.
My wife babied it, I flogged it and 5.9 was the worst the average ever got.
Your number is very fair at 6.5/100.
However, you have completely missed the CO involved in extraction and processing of the crude oil into fuel for the Mazda2 for a fair comparison.
If we include the battery in the EV and its fuel, so we must the fuel for the ICE car.
Mazda2 still the better choice.
What method did you use to get those numbers? From car computer or calculated from fuel bill and distance traveled?
I'm asking this because there may be discrepancy between those numbers. For my car, there is roughly 0.75-1L/100km difference (computer shows less/better mileage).
Reasonable point, but John has not included the losses in charging either his approach is reasonable. A quick look on google gives the loss between 4 & 20 per cent when charging. I would suggest that if you counted both upstream CO2 from oil refining & distribution it would balance out the charging losses.
It's in the national greenhouse gas accounts. Last time I checked the overhead for petrol production was single digit percent.
@@duncanbuchanan218after losses, CO2 intensity for, say, Victoria is 920g per kWh
@@duncanbuchanan218 not even close mate
I have bought 2 cars in my life , When I first got my licence in 1995 I bought a GQ Patrol currently it has done 480k original motor , a decade later I bought an X-Trail for the missus it currently sists at 145k. Both cars still drive perfectly and I don't plan on buying new cars as I have no need on one. I would like to see an EV last half as long.
Lovely calculations Mr Cadogan but they did not seem to include the CO2 cost of extraction and transportation of oil, the CO2 cost of refining that oil to diesel and petrol and the associated CO2 cost to transport it to the distribution hubs.
Also you compare the opportunity cost of a 31k Mazda with a 90k Tesla when a punter could buy a 45k MG or BYD EV which would be a much closer match.
Still better than the cost to setup charging stations for Everyone, all the copper, earthworks, parking etc etc imo
Ripper video John- thanks for building some clarity around the hysteria, MALS!
I was recently in Indonesia and was shocked to see how much better the Indonesians ranked on the CO2 per capita charts! This is besides every second house burning their own plastic rubbish. Interesting that 99% of the vehicles were either kei trucks or scooters, no 2.5 tonne shit boxes carting a single flog around. They’d rather put 4 flogs on a moped and enjoy the “fresh air”.
This would be a really interesting study that I could do in more detail I suppose in my spare time. Anyhow, love the show and roolly roolly hope you read this out in the bogan voice!
John had me riveted at that first statement.
"This is gonna be good", I thought.
I looked into this earlier this year and was surprised by the numbers. One thing you briefly mentioned, charging efficiency, makes a massive difference. On average, the efficiency is around 85%, but it varies depending on the type of charger and the ambient temperature. On particularly cold or hot days, efficiency can drop as low as 60%. Factoring in the average efficiency of 85% could result in a difference in CO2 emissions closer to -19%.
how much difference would it make if he factored in the CO2 emissions to mine, refine and transport oil? A glaring omission from his "unbiased' analysis. Or how much difference if he used more realistic milage figures. Who gets 6.5L per 100km's? Certainly no car of equivalent size to Tesla Y. And how much difference if he picked a car that wasn't much smaller and lighter so he couldn't get the maximum battery weight to pump up the battery CO2 numbers? This analysis was a crock.
Hi John, I love your suggestion of incentivising low co2 emission vehicles that's excellent. I'm a firm believer that smaller cars are the best way forward too.
Can you clear up whether that number of co2 emission you have for the mazda includes the co2 that has gone into producing the petrol, or is it just the co2 the mazda directly produces as it burns fuel?
I'd like to see a comparison that adds the 'cost' in co2 of producing the fuel and getting the fuel into the mazda's fuel tank, the same way you are measuring the co2 that has gone into producing the electricity that the EV consumes, and also allow for the distribution loss, and conversion loss of getting that energy into the EV's battery pack.
I say this because the main cost of production, storage technology and consumption should all be weighed together. Otherwise you're sort of measuring just the bit of the picture you want to measure, and I'm interested to see if it still works out the co2 costs are the same!
Also there’s the recycle lifespan to consider too. The Mazda will be a fully viable used car after 10 years usage. Whereas the Tesla wouldn’t be so viable due to the 8 year warranty has ran out and end of life disposal of the batter costs and C02 cost.
I’ll stick with my fully serviceable ICE vehicle. Great video John 👍
which makes the opportunity cost of the expensive EV even worse from a financial standpoint. As the grid has more pressure on it electricity prices will continue to rise making public charging even more expensive further impacting the financials. I also fear the quality of the horde of chinese made EVs, which may be cheaper upfront, but not over the lifetime, which is likely to be much less thatn quality made vehicles.
You forget the CO2 released from manufacturing the internal combustion engine, transmission, fuel tank and everything associated with the propulsion system of the ICE car. The comparison of CO2 emissions from ICE and EV has been done by real scientists many many times. The result is that EVs make up the increased CO2 released during manufacturing in about 2 years of operation. After that the EV is all cleaner.
He didn’t forget. He purposely omitted them as the’s the only way he could his paltry 10% difference between a Y and a small lightweight ICE car using unrealistic mileage
All good numbers John , BUT !!!
You forgot to add the ' Carbon Footprint ' the Tesla made during manufacture ,, it's 4-5x that of the Mazda !
Hi John, once again, i always appreciate your imput on this matter, and i hope i can get a response.
As an electrical engineer and part time statistician, i have a couple of faults with this analysis.
Firstly: no one would ever compare the masda to a tesla, theyre not equivalent vehicles, one is probably for someone that GENUINELY enjoys driving, one is for someone that enjoys taking journeys and needs a commuter or buisness vehicle and probably doesnt care for the car more than how it performs (generalisation) but i wouldnt class them in the same category. If you want a smaller 4/5 seater EV, a good example would be a dacia, voxhaul, or a vw id.
I completely agree with your estimate about materials and production for the overall vehicle, however, and one thing i believe that is missed out about the batteries here are 2 things:
The majority of co2 estimates come from fossil fuel burning for electricity to produce the batteries. (So essentially the cleaner the grid of the country you manufacture, the cleaner the batteries). This also means that the more that a country invests in renewables, the cleaner making a battery becomes. (I believe Australia and china burns alot of coal) however the assumption that our grid will never get any greener is one of the biggest fundamental flaw in most arguments against EVs.
And 2, some (not all) battery plants are powered by 100% renewable energy and only use the grid to top up any lack in power.
A massive factor that you havent included is the amount of refining and production that goes to manufacturing fuel, it doesnt just come out of the ground and go straight into the car. In fact nearly the exact same amount of energy goes into refining the fuel as does lithium refining (same weight). This utterly ruins any argument against EVs by itself but...
The other is massive transport costs to transport the gasoline by boat and truck. Times any of this by 10 years and including this into any calculation, it absolutely destroys any comparison to any EV car. - primarily because electricity is often pumped (gas), or is generated within the country (neuclear, solar, wind). Coal is a big exception, however alot of countriees are phasing this out.
I agree with alot of your maths, and will trust that the sources you found are reliable. However, Even Conservative estimates of EVs show that EVs reduce by over double if not tripple the Co2 consumption when compared to a 100% dirty grid.
GENUINELY enjoys driving in Australia with a 110 KPH limit? Refining coal into electric power? vast holes mining and transportation. Try Perth airport every morning of the week going to work on jets to mine rare earth metals. The solar panels require the same metals. If you are happy to have a Nuclear power station give us your post code.
@sustainart5207 I am not sure of your point here, appologies.
@@DS9FANINDADEFIANT Speed limits are a cash cow in Australia. Traffic police behind every saltbush and no lane discipline. Most Australians barely go over 60. Given the inexperience of most drivers, car makers hand them a weapon that does 0-100 in 2.3 seconds, what could go wrong? Even in the dark, the Kangaroos get you. I used to drive high-performance cars, these days I look and my brain switches on. Why bother?
@sustainart5207 you don't have to make a turbocharged V6 in a car... you don't have to put a 180+KW motor in a tesla or any other EV. Some EVs are slow, unfortunately it's alot easier for an electric motor to be powerful (and it's more efficient for it to be) so it has to be software limited to cap speed and torque. Which is fine, but then people complain that they don't have full power.
@@sustainart5207 nuke power is fantastic and very safe. Happy to have it near me, in the USofA but i'd be happy to have it in a less spacious country as well if i lived in one.
You missed a very important detail. Producing fuel is very energy intensive and you dump a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. There is the gas refineries just burn to get rid off, there is all that heating required to run the distillation process (hundreds of degrees on a fuckton of raw material). And there is the shipping and transportation of crude and distilled products. Oil must somehow get to Straia and then gas must get to the pump.
Well, he's not going to present the whole data to make his argument absolutely useless, is he?
Nice and simple - good work. But - why did you pick the Model Y Performance which has the largest battery and is not a close comparison to a Mazda 2. Why not a smaller BYD or something with a smaller battery? It carries 4 people (as you said that was you guide to pick an equivalent EV). You included the calculations in CO2 creating the electricity and the manufacturing of the batteries, but not the CO2 in the manufacturing of the fuel - not just the burning of the fuel. Dunno - I might run your same numbers on a smaller cheaper EV and add those CO2 numbers for the manufacture of the fuel and see how that comes out. Might flip the the number I expect
Recently attended Belrose Supa Centre in NSW. EV charging points in the bottom level of the carpark, which has 4 or 5 levels above. Chargers are located right next to the moving escalators/lift well that continues up to the top floor of the building. There is a rooftop carpark, which is open air. Surely a better place for chargers!
From what I understand, the car parks are not engineered to take the weight of Evs on the upper floors. The charging stations are likely near the lifts because the structure is stronger there and the electrical lines are there as well. Safety is not considered.
I suck at maths, but with your explanation this demonstration was made quite clear. When I first saw the whiteboard, I said 'Nope. I'm out', but wound up watching until the end. Thank you!
So many things that are biased in this comparison. You have taken the CO2 "cost" for the production of the fuel for the EV, but not for the ICE car. When you add that in (total CO2 emissions Well-to-pump for 1 L of petrol is 3310 g/L CO2EQ) and 6.5 l/100km and 150000 km (150000x6.5/100x3.310=32272.5 kg) you get 32(ish) Tonnes of CO2EQ for the Mazda, NOT the 22.5 T you have claimed. This instantly makes the Model Y (even by your calculations) about 20% better in CO2 emissions.
Then if you use a more fair comparison vehicle to vehicle on performance, choose the Model 3 Performance, as you chose the Model Y performance spec (461 kW, 741 nm, $80900) vs Alfa Giulia QV (As I see one mentioned in the comments and it's a wonderful car) (375 kW, 600 nm, $172000). Here the battery mass is about 300 kg less (less initial emissions) the mass difference is about 200 kg in favour of the Alfa, but with the battery mass taken out it's 300 kg in favour of the Tesla. But I'll concede that the CO2 cost for the production of each vehicle is about the same without the battery. Using your formula (88 kg CO2/kWh) gives the cost of 7.128T for the battery and 18 T for the "fuel", or 25 T in total. The Alfa @ 8.2 L/100km has a CO2 footprint of 41 Tonnes. A whopping 40% reduction.
And, this is not taking into account the CO2 costs for servicing and maintenance.
Now, to take things to the ridiculous extremes that you often do. With the $90k in savings, you could buy 80 kWh of home batteries and have enough left over to put in a 3-phase level 2 charger (presumably for you outside your garage), sign up to OVO and get three hours of free electricity between 11am and 2pm and charge the battery for free each day when the grid is usually around 70% renewable and getting better each year, which drops your 650 g/kWh to about 200 g/kWh and the 18 T CO2 for "fuel" to 5.5 T (overall 12.7 T emissions for the EVs). Of course you would need to add in the CO2 equivalent for the battery production (7 T), but this will last probably 20 years, so let's halve that figure to 3.5 T. Add this to the 12.7 T and you'll get 16 T CO2EQ for a model 3 performance or a massive 60% savings over the Alfa.
So maybe you'd better change the rating to AF, "Alternative facts" or BS as those of us that ARE scientifically literate would call it.
I love it when someone provides actual analysis and facts that are irrefutable. There's something very odd going with these so called petrol heads that makes them continue to support an industry that has lied to all of us and contaminated our lives for a century, not to mention the billions that the oil industry receives every single year in government subsidies (and they complain about government helps to get an EV, so laughable). Thanks for this, honestly.
Yes the 150g CO2/km for Petrol in the ICE is a little light, i'd expect the value to around 220-250 g/km when you include both production and consumption.
I strongly agree.
I always say if u haven’t owned it u wouldn’t have an idea.
It’s the whole ownership experience
I also want to add:
For those mentioning that battery “must be changed after 10 years” which isn’t the case, and that the degradation is a must %80 which again isn’t likely to be that bad.
What about ICE ???
I have owned mazda before and like it, but irrelative of brand, do you really think the engine will stay efficient like day one??
After 6 years I kid you not my mazda which was brand new was doing 530-550km per fill up (cx9) it went down as bad as 430-450 km overfill up) and the trip computer confirmed that. And that’s after me being OCD and baby my car a lot don’t speed etc.
U do the math !!
I’m not being ev evangelism lol but since telling facts it’s good to tell the whole story.
There’s even an episode on top gear (hardcore ice show, ev hater) which gladly shows a Mercedes lose between 20-40 % can’t remember exactly as it ages and rated power is less, therefore less efficient, less range etc.
Nothing works like when brand new doesn’t matter what it is!! At least the electric motor stays same exact efficiency for its life. Battery degradation is strictly less range nothing else. And 359-450km is more than enough daily driving
I got 510km range with my model y LR drove Sydney to past Newcastle and still had 58% of battery, with 5 heavy adults and more than 120kg of bags cargo for holiday packed to the max. In 40 degree summer heat And many inclines getting there!
This is tested in real life i even doubted myself it would even arrive there before supercharging, I honestly didn’t even supercharge…
Just used a normal charger while there charged back to 80% for local driving done at night. Than with 70% drive back to Sydney 10 days later.
That week I completely got over the so called “range anxiety”
Now I drive to Goulburn and back with not even a sweat.
Few additions: the green electricity at 36:15 isn’t a con or scam, the grid operators have been disconnecting wind and solar farms during the middle of the day for the last 2 years. Also inverter throttling is becoming more widespread. Hence small scale exported electricity like residential solar that isn’t self consumed is effectively wasted. His charging at night assumption was based on the lower tariffs between 11pm-6 am in the past. The tariffs have finally caught up and people’s charging habits are changing very quickly. The 40% renewable is total electricity, including charging at night. If charging during the day without rooftop solar, the average in Australia was estimated for 2023 was around 65% and above 70% for 2024, I don’t recall where I read this.
John Brilliant Vlog as always Solar Sydney 32 degrees Latitude South Wyndham 15 degrees South
15 degrees North Mali, Mexico etc 32 degrees North Phoenix Arizona Dallas Texas. London 51, Edinburgh 56 degrees North
The decrease in Solar through Europe is huge.
You are an Engineering Maverick.
The "prayer room" was renamed "Pyne's Parlour" in 2021. Try to keep up.
I missed that meeting...
@@AutoExpertJC sorry to hear it. It was quite the occasion, every attendee was given a fleshy flute to play.
Hi John. I have a couple of points for you to consider in your calculations. You have calculated the tailpipe emissions of the Mazda 2 but you haven't accounted for the CO2 emissions involved in getting oil out of the ground, refining it and transporting it. If you can find figures for this your calculation will change significantly. As a side issue you could find the amount of electricity used to refine the road fuel and how far the Tesla could travel on just that. Estimates I have seen are in the range of 4kWh for each imperial gallon of petrol refined. Also your politicians are clever enough to have solar panels that can charge the Tesla at night, here in Brexitistan our solar panels only work during the day. I would be delighted to see your figures reworked to include road fuel carbon emissions. Kind regards. Jack
Excellent video and analysis John. The CO2 emission results for EVs are actually significantly worse than you have already noted after you factor in all the CO2 emissions associated with doubling the electricity generation capacity, and replacing every single piece of electrical infrastructure (generators, transmission towers, transmission lines, sub-stations, transformers, local transmission lines and local transformers). After years of assertions that an EV vehicle fleet would only add a few percent to power generation and distribution requirements, both Elon Musk and the US electrical energy suppliers have, in recent months, noted that the size of the grid needs to be doubled just for EVs. And then increased another 50% for all the additional load associated with massive data storage associated with AI and cloud storage.
Agreed....unfortunately the majority [talking 99.9%] of the people watching this great informative video already question EV v's ICE and Climate Change [or whatever the current politically correct gender identity title / pro noun is] and therefore won't be persuaded in to the EV market.
Because of 'the Global Elite / WEF / The Agenda there's no mainstream media or journalist who will publish or cover this even if to try to discredit because they know they can't and if they tried the 'aforementioned' would remove funding and shut them down.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish but only after you've provided indisputable facts that I'm wrong
Data centers in A.Murica are another energy challenge for the grid competing with EVs. Getting trucks electrified too has been problematic with just one Tesla truck needing a megawatt charger. Even doubling the grid would not be enough for this utopia we are being sold.
A lot more emissions go into extracting, refining and transporting fossil fuels. Sorry dude
Another problem that doesn’t get reported enough is that we are running out of sunlight and wind due to the solar panels and wind turbines; if we keep building them, we will end up with deserts everywhere as no wind cools them and everyone in the dark as we used up all the sunlight.
We need to drill more, the earth makes more then enough crude to last forever! No more solar and wind, stop using up those limited resources!!
@@rattusfinkusretired power company electrician here, increasing the grid power demand to accommodate the EV charging also dramatically increases the line losses of delivering that power to the point of consumption! Sorry dude!
John called out the obvious disparity in size between a Mazda 2 and a Model Y, with the mazda 2 being significantly smaller than the Tesla, especially boot space.
Why not compare the Mazda to something like a BYD Atto 3 which is also far closer in price and size.
Because he has an agenda.
You included the CO2 emissions to generate the fuel for the EV, but you did not include the CO2 generated in producing the perrol for the Mazda. That should probably be added to the Mazda's emissions
If he was to include the CO2 of the fuel production, I guess he should have also considered the CO2 of the manufacturing of solar panels, inverters and wind farms. 🤔
Very good. Now do the same analysis substituting a BYD with a LiFePO battery.
I was once told by my then boss "never argue against yourself" which I took to mean choose the best case you can find to make your point. You appear to be following that advice in this case.
I have no major problems with your calculations but the Mazda 2 GT and the Tesla model Y are in no way similar. Once is a front wheel drive and the other is an all wheel drive. If you do the comparison using the Tesla Model 3 RWD you save 2 tons of CO2 in manufacturing the battery as it is a 57.5 KWh battery. It also is more efficient than the Model Y. You included the CO2 cost of manufacturing the fuel (electricity) for the Tesla but not the CO2 cost of the Mazda's fuel. As petrol in Australia is all imported you should have included the CO2 cost of extracting the crude, shipping it to a refinery, refining it , shipping it to Australia and distributing it. I suspect that would be more than the half ton of CO2 difference between the Mazda and the Tesla Model 3.
The model 3 RWD is $25,000 cheaper than the Model Y performance so that money could be used to purchase solar panels and a battery given your comment that one would get change from $30,000 for such a system.
When you look at your figures what jumps out at me is the CO2 cost of the EVs electricity 18 tons out of the total of 25 tons or 72% of the CO2 for a Model Y and 78% of the 23 tons of CO2 for a Model 3. That is where government actions should be focused. In Australia that is happening with the dirtiest source of CO2 (coal) being rapidly removed from power generation.
By my calculations the EV is slightly better for overall CO2 production not the 10% worse your figures show.
I'm not going to dispute your figures as they appear to be reasonable and thus your conclusion is reasonable too. However, it fails to answer the exam question: Will the CO2 savings of EV save the Planet? That answer would have to be, NO, as the savings amount to the square root of fuck all.
In addition, you want the cost of creating and transporting the fuel for the Mazda. OK, what about the CO2 costs of upgrading the National Grids of every country on Earth?
@@csjrogerson2377we can be a bit nuanced in our logic. Will shifting all ICE cars to EV get CO2 to the consensus level it needs to be ? No. But can we get CO2 to that level without decarbonising vehicle transport? Also no. We need to lots of things simultaneously and it’s usually better to do the easy things first and for most people using an EV rather than an ICE is achievable and impactful.
@@Andrew-sq2oy Ok, but there is no consensus to make cuts in CO2 production in domestic, industrial or agricultural areas. There are zero proposals on offer.
Thanks for articulating this so well John, I have been trying to explain this to people for quite a while.
"It's more important to be seen to be doing good, than to actually do good"
TL;DW: Facts don't hurt. No EV's are not "eco friendly". They're actually worse if you don't look after them.
Hi John, despite all the funny comments here, I get the underlying conclusion: the opportunity cost of the 60k to save the planet far outweighs the differences of the vehicles whole of life ownership CO2 emissions.
MG4 is a fairer comparison
The fun thing about statistics is that you can cherry pick them to say whatever you want, but it takes a lot of tinfoil to deny the massive upsurge in cancer and lung\breathing issues.
Interestingly enough, they used statistics to advertise the health benefits of cigarette smoking for a long time to increase the adoption rate until it was considered ignorant NOT to smoke to improve your health and the health of those around you.
Why didn't you compare the subcompact ICEV with a subcompact BEV? This comparison is somewhat unfair because they are different size classes. A fair comparison would be between Mazda 2 and Chevrolet Bolt EV or Nissan LEAF.
he needed to make it as unfair as possible to get the 10% advantage over ice. He didn't even include emissions for mining and refining oil into petrol. That's how biased it is
Great video John. A few other things that might be taken into account in ICE / EV comparisons include 1. the environmental cost of upgrading the grid (at least here in the UK) to provide the extra power for EV charging (steel, concrete etc). 2. CO2 cost of extra road maintenance due to heavier vehicles. 3 CO2 cost of manufacturing solar arrays. There will of course be extras on the other side of the equation like new oil exploration etc. Calculations might be a bit more difficult for all the extra costs on both sides of the equation.
I acknowledge that I am by your definition the "green zealot, with the perfect job, massive solar array and ideally located etc.) I used your numbers to calculate the impact of my EV (a Mini Cooper SE) and found that it results in 18.5 tons of CO2, which puts me ahead in terms of emissions-even when considering your grid charging CO2 figures. I also fit the ADHD example you mentioned-I have a 14kW solar array on my house and charge my EV entirely from solar power, only plugging in when there's surplus energy. Over the car's lifetime, my EV will be significantly more environmentally friendly than a comparable ICE equivalent. While I understand that I'm an outlier and that you're focusing on the average consumer, it's worth noting that I am not some hairy hippy greenie, but some of us can still achieve a better outcome in terms of CO2 emissions. One thing missing from the discussion is that many people choose an EV because it offers a superior driving experience for daily use, not for perceived environmental reasons.
The EV driving experience is certainly great. I have only driven one briefly but apart from retarded controls ( model 3 indicator is actually cruise resume but why?) I loved the smooth continuous acceleration and ever came to grips with the one pedal driving pretty easily. Having 13.2 kW of solar wont be 100 % of my charging solution but with the shifts I work it would give me about 2 hours of charge time most days to keep a floating charge and then a bit more on days off. Once we get a simple (read cheaper) EV without all the frippery and it has a battery that's safe to park next to my front door I'm in.
I love the Mazda 2, but it's not manly enough for most Aussies.
I've just selected a Mazda6 G25 Sport Wagon on the Mazda Aust site. It is listed at $39290 drive-away.
Tesla Australia lists the Poverty Pack, 2024 Model Y RWD, but only has them with Premium Upholstery. It is listed at $60891 drive-away.
Price-wise, the Mazda is $21k cheaper, but it only comes with cloth seats. We have leather in our current ICE vehicle & could do without the butt shock in summer & winter.
The BLACK leather seats would be a searing pan in summer & a slab of ice in winter.
The Mazda comes with roof rails, tasteful alloys & colossal luggage capacity.
By contrast, the Tesla claims 455km of range, which is not achievable in the real world. Its %charge left indication for the battery is optimistic or fraudulent, and the plastic wheel covers are ugly but befitting the stale and bland styling.
My contribution to reducing consumption is to avoid fizzy drinks, inflate my tyres with air, and continue with my dry powder fire extinguisher.
I'll stick with my 91 gq 4.2 turbo diesel patrol no fucked up electronics. hand throttle and no air bags coz we die like real men haha
Fuck yeah!
My mum had a bronze one back in the late 90s/early 2000s. A proper whistlin' diesel.
If you're driving a GQ you're more likely to just end up severely mentally impaired
Gu owner here .. definitely not a green machine that’s for sure lol
I also stick with my old Kia Sportage 2008, no gratuitous electronics just a simple, comfy, solid car.
Sorry John, but your numbers for the Tesla are wrong.
You have not factored in the degradation of the battery over those 10 years. That 430km range will be barely 340km in 10 years time (80% remaining capacity).
No doubt that won't be the original owners problem - they would have traded the old donk in at 5 years. But reality still matters, and those batteries are not made of magic, they will degrade. The numbers for the Tesla are even worse than your +10% compared to the Mazda 2.
A friend of mine bought a ID4 last year. From snooping around in the car his "average" is ~25KWh/100k. He drove 60k kilometers in that time, replaced 2 aircons, this summer used 2 sets of tires, and his battery capacity dropped by like 5%. ;)
There is a 2020 Tesla Model 3 in QLD that just hit 300,000km and it has 89% of the original capacity. The batteries are very well managed in modern EVs.
@@foylemaIs’nt that nice…
My 2011 3.2 ltr Diesel Pajero just ticked over 320k this week..but strangely I still have 100% usability of my 70ltr fuel tank.
@@foylema its lost 11% of its capacity in 4 years? That is not something to brag about...
@@foylemathat’s pretty good
This was a great exercise but there are many missing pieces that are worth considering. Many people with rooftop solar consider their total electricity consumption and adding an EV would be included in that calc, ideally. Keep in mind that EVs have developed to where they are (still somewhat early adoption) in a little over 10 years whereas the ICE vehicle industry has had roughly 100 years; things are changing quickly. For this reason, it is also not great to use averages because the available data is skewed by older technologies while not updated to account for the current and coming technology.
One huge oversight in such exercises is not accounting for just how much energy is wasted along the way from mining to burning/conversion for electricity generation to grid/distribution to propelling vehicles. Burning fossil fuels to do all of this is actually quite inefficient, with as much as 80% or so lost to inefficiency/waste/heat. This is perhaps the most compelling argument for the push we are seeing to electrify as much stuff as possible. In theory, the efficiency gains alone can justify much of the enormous investment. Electric motors are inherently much more efficiency than combustion engines, for instance.
You also compared two very different vehicles. The Model Y is larger and can seat up to 7 people and supposedly a SUV, for example, and it's often much less than $90k, at least in the US where they can be had for half that. Then there's also often tax incentives to offset the costs (whether you agree with them or not). Then again, we also tend to subsidize very mature and profitable industries such as the fossil fuel ones as well, similar to renewables but without the same logic. There are emissions other than CO2 to be concerned with. EVs tend to require less maintenance and batteries can be recycled even though we haven't implemented efficient ways of doing so.
These are just points to consider but I also think it's a worthy exercise to do these comparisons and be as objective as possible. I drive a big SUV with a V8 btw.
Engineering Explained did a comparison and the EV broke even with the gas car somewhere between 2-3 years. That was on the US grid. I have heard that the Australian grid is greening up faster than the US. Also battery recycling is a thing. Look up "black mass". I wonder how this would have compared to a Chevy Bolt since they are closer in price.
Thank you for working this out. However, I would have preferred that you had done a base Model Y on the basis that anyone watching this who doesn't agree with you and who has a clue will say that you used the Model Y Performance to skew both vehicle price and range/efficiency. Basically, this was cherry-picked - not awfully bad, but I don't think it's being intellectually forthcoming. They employ similar tactics so I believe it would be readily apparent to them.
Another thing to consider is refueling vs charging time - you can fill up a Mazda in 5 minutes, an EV charge is at least 30 minutes even on a fast charger. Not exactly practical while travelling.
Yeah but the EVangelists seem to all need 30 minutes or more to pee and stretch their legs and get some coffee so it's just like owning an ICE!. I do all that and am back on the road in a maximum of 10 minutes and have 450 miles of range. No EV can come close to matching that. I have an EV as well I just leave it at home when I need to go somewhere more than 200 miles a day.
@@joecoolioness6399same here. I recently drove from sydney from Melbourne and back. I took my Audi Q5 rather than my BYD Atto 3. I don't want to stop 50 million times to charge, wait for charging to complete, or go further while hoping the chargers at the next stop are working. Sure it costs more to drive the Audi but it's more convenient and less stressful.
Part of that consideration is how often you actually do more than 300 miles a day. For most people it is not really a problem. If it is then get a diesel. In 20 years time almost everyone will choose the EV over the diesel.
Plus it’ll cost you a fortune in pies and coffee for the whole family every time…
@@nathankendalThe servo pie? That's basically toilet abuse.
I had a Hyundai Ionic5 inflicted on me over the weekend by my wife. It is a 3 year lease and was her "dream" so the saying, "it is cheaper to keep her" applies. I still have carburetor motorcycles that I use daily to commute to work. Yeh, work I work in aviation, so nothing is greener.
Stick a bit of AvGas in it
Why make up your own scope 2 number for electricity? It’s published by the department.
And why exclude scope 3? That number is also provided.
These numbers are also provided by state and there is a LOT of variation. You can apply the national average if you like, but difference in location is enough to swing your argument either way.
But only when you are heavily stacking the argument against EV by excluding scope 3 emissions for petrol. Which are not insignificant like they are for electricity, and are also published by the department.
no replacement for big displacement. milk and juice comes in 2ltrs
The big issue is what do you do with the 60k saving. If you invested it in an ISA or special savings account you could virtually wipe out depreciation which you haven't taken into account.
The other thing you have failed to take into account is the CO2 of the recycling of the cars at end of life.
Over here in sheepshagastan, our factory's are struggling with out electricity supply, as the winter has actually been a normal very dry and cold, henceforth all the electrical vehicles aren't asked to save electricity, just closing down factory's, 😊😊.
Sheepshagastan 😀 I’m stealing that!
@@larryberry2436 that's John's description, ha ha ha ha. Of us over here.
I have a 10 kWh solar panel array with an 8kWh three phase inverter. I struggle during the winter months to generate sufficient electricity to cover the daily house consumption let alone to store and charge a 13 kW battery to full let alone put say 40 KW into a car. In July I saw 10 days where solar generation was less than 12 kW if I could add a screen shot I would do so to support with data from my system here in Victoria on the Mornington Peninsula.
I live on the MP too. I can vouch for you. Bugger-all from my PV array some days.
I'm on the Yorke Peninsular, 150km North East of Adelaide, also with a largish solar array (no battery yet) 9.6kw panels, 8kw inverters. Today, my output was 30kwh, but yesterday barely 9kwh due to overcast. It's worse in winter with around 33% of the days featuring cloud cover.
Just been pushed onto a time of use tariff (thank you for the meter upgrade) - peak time is 3PM to 1 AM and 6AM to 10AM. 55c'kwh.
Over July, our 11kw solar array produced 30% of our household needs. During summer, it produces way more than we need. The imbalance between supply and demand throughout the year is nuts.
@@lunsmann I don't have any solar...20 cent flat rate 24/7.
@@Techo1329 - wow. It's almost like we don't all live in the same place and don't all pay the same amount for electricity. South Australia has been the most expensive state in Oz since like nearly forever - ever since the state Libs privatised it.
I have been preaching this message for years to all I know. Your article is so very well put over. Great job
The calculation looks good to me.
The problem is that it doesn’t work for me here in Denmark.
The grid emissions here is 130 grams per kWh and that tips the scales towards the EV.
I did it for my diesel car and I do emit 6 tons more over 10 years.
I still don’t want one for all the other reasons.
This is your best work ever. The implications are more substantial than any meager % you could have made as an ME, for some enviro company.
Hmm how about adding in the co2 created in getting that litre of petrol out of the ground, refined and into the tank of the Mazda.
Same for the coal used in the power stations that charge the EV. It's probably very similar in CO2 emissions. He also mentioned the fugitive emissions from mining coal and also ignored that in the calculations for the electricity production.
Your one obvious mistake was that the present grid CO2 intensity is 550g/kWh which is 8% less than your number. This changes your equivalence right now in favour of the Tesla. Projections estimate that the grid in 2050 will have an intensity of 100g. This blows your argument out of the water
Nope - grid intensity hasn't actually changed significantly since last year, - percentage of fossil fuels in the grid mix only went down slightly, so the figure he's using is still pretty applicable.
Umm, I think he was talking about the comparison right now, not what might (or might not) happen in 25years?
As always you have "put it on the numbers". Thank you.
Solar is completely capable of charging your ev for average daily use of 41km./8200wH and powering your home in Australia. A battery in your car can even support the grid in high use 6pm time segments as well as take in extra grid production when too much electricity is being produced. You get paid for both. Almost every day progress is being made. Vehicle to load and vehicle to grid are steps forward on the path to the future without fossil fuels as a main energy source.
The fact that the M3 was drafting the Prius the entire way and only managed 11% is pretty fkn sht to be fair
how much co2 is emitted to refine fuel and bring it to the gas station though? EV makes no financial sense to me, nor does hybrid so I got an ICE 2 months ago. And if we consider purchase cost, we should also consider energy cost. Even your own solar isn't free, the panels, inverters and home battery have a finite life so I would amortize the cost over the warranty duration.
If you compare a 150cc scooter to a Hummer EV, the scooter is much better for the environment. We need to get away from electric bikes and smart cars and use the environmentally friendly 3 ton UTEs for short commutes and daily chores.
Not sure but shouldn't you factor in CO2 for the extraction, refining and distribution of the petrol. The electricity production would include that in the government figures for coal presumably. Also, the numbers assume no increase in electricity generation from co2 neutral sources which we should be aiming for and could be encouraged with more incentives, batteries or even nuclear power. That withstanding, the figures are closer than most people think.
Great breakdown of the issue. If you could be botherer to polish it off, you could include the impact of using money saved buying Mazda 2 to go "off grid" with mega solar plus battery storage
I have been saying the same (without the supporting data as demonstrated here) for 10 years. Ive been austrocized (see what i did there?) by my latte sipping ex-friends and now only associate with diesel heads. Thanks for the video John, as always exceptional.
- we who are born australizanized in the antipodes cast away from all that was mamma.. And we thrived.
600K to dismantle one windfarm windmill >Whos paying for that ?
So you compare 500+ horsepower, 3.8 sec 0-60 AWD SUV with 900+ liters of cargo space with a Mazda 2? Why? Why not against some Audi Q6 4.2 liter gasoline? Or Range Rover? Or on the other hand - why not Renault Zoe or Nissan Leaf? Or Fiat 500 EV vs the Mazda 2?
Yawn. Try to keep up: Both are roughly equivalent on planet-saving potential. One is far easier to deploy to the masses. The other is the most popular EV in the world...
Not all comparisons have to be dollar-for-dollar or on the basis of being in the same segment.
(This is a very grown-up concept. Don't let it trouble you.)
@@AutoExpertJC well, dear grown up agenda pusher, you either compare apples with apples, or compare stuff, disrespectful of specs, if it fits your narrative. If you were the first to play this game cherry picking would not have been invented. Unlucky you - no "first ever" award for your stunt. P.S. trying to be smart does not work every time.
Did you look in the mirror when you said that? Top Gear and Prius vs M3???
@@AutoExpertJC yes. I look in a mirror sometimes, and that is what i see. I drive 50-70 000 km yearly since 2010. Between 2010 and 2020 i have driven 3 consecutive brand new Mazda 6 Wagons. But my family grew and lately i have even used 520 liter top box. It burns 8-9 l per 100 km, not 6.5. So when my last Mazda 6 Wagon become 250 000 km old i had to change it. I got Telsla model Y. Or i should get 2x Mazda 2? Or Mazda 2 + trailer? Now i've got 20 kWp rooftop solar and 65 kWh batteries, and i charge from solar day or night at least 9 months yearly (winter is worse, sure).
On top of that my job is to deal with health consequences of tailpipe emissions, of which you are somewhat quiet. Why is that? You are aware that obese people are even more likely to get cancer or cardiovascular disease, aren't you? Mirror?
So what you preach is total BS for a lot of use cases. Compare apples with apples, or quit talking for sciense.
@@AutoExpertJC You're clearly not a grown-up when you compare a city car with an SUV. You're grasping at straws trying to make EVs look bad.
You can't compare different car segments' emissions, I thought you were grown-up enough to understand this :P
You may as well compare Australia's #1, the Ford Ranger to the #6 Toyota Corolla and then go "look how much worse the CO2 is on the Ranger vs Corolla". Well DUH! Because as you say: "Not all comparisons have to be dollar-for-dollar or on the basis of being in the same segment." It's just as pointless.
If someone is replacing their ICE SUV they not going to go buy a small car like a Mazda 2 unless their life situation has changed drastically.
And you also completely ignored the emissions from extracting, refining and transporting petrol or diesel.
Not everyone has a dirty coal fired grid like Australia, and the energy mix is getting greener every year. ICE cars will not change much in emissions. Manufactures struggle already to meet new demands resulting in these tiny engines and cars that are extremely dull to drive.
Thanks John, very satisfying video.
Question. Does your equation take into account the extraction and transport of coal? Fuel oil and refining? Shipping? Or does that take us too far down the rabbit hole?
As a wannabe tree hugging hippie i have a couple of points : -
1. Why didnt you use the figures from the cheaper Tesla model Y RWD - if you did I'd guess that the 10% difference would evaporate.
2. If everybody goes and buys a Mazda 2 - the CO2 figures are locked in for the next 10 years +, But improvements to the grid over the next 10 years ie less coal burning and more solar farms, wind, and batteries and pumped hydro etc. could improve the CO2 rate burnt by the running of the Tesla.
3. The changing nature of work, and the greying of the population, means more people are home during the day - where they can charge their Tesla from the grid when its green - I watch the Aemo dashboard and know there's a lot of green evergy available in the middle of the day.
4. Lastly, Teslas in Australia use LFP batteries - which are far less likely to catch fire, and when they do, its not as intense as a Lithium Ion fire.
except all of that additional infrastructure still requires the consumption of fossil fuels so no that doenst stack up.
You’re not easily getting over the 650 g CO2/kWh.
@@TheMintox
Solar works out to under 50g CO2/kWh produced. That’s an efficient use of a carbon budget.
@@TheMintox they are going to do that anyway
@@TheMintox so does the fossil fuel consumption, add 40% to tailpipe emissions for extraction, refining and transport, no free lunch chum.
I heard that in the real world Mazda NA engines return much higher fuel economy than other manufacturers with small turbo engines
I'm not a massive fan of Mazda myself, but they seem to be the only manufacturer still trying to innovate with internal combustion engines.
The other companies just put all their eggs in the EV and hybrid basket because they can claim to be innovating without actually inventing anything new.
@@Patrick-857I think Toyota too.
It's just that Toyota are far more conservative in terms of engine design, erring on the side of robustness.
They still innovate, but are less willing to push the envelope lest the deliver a shit quality power plant.
@@jaysdoodand yet they managed to do just that with the new V6...
@@wizzyno1566straight six with Mazda.
@@Patrick-857Mazda's are better than Toyota's I think.
From this I take the following:
- SUVs are unnecessarily thirsty, whether EV or ICE.
- Australia’s grid is very dirty meaning the green potential of EVs in Australia is not currently of value.
Thank you John for another in depth thought experiment
Redid the math for New Zealand grid: using 130g of co2 per kwh, found lower figure but still show a big diff vs AU grid; got 3.5t +7t=10.5t of co2 for the tesla. so half the mazda 2 here in NZ
Really depend of your electricity grid. Anyway got an hybrid toyota rav4 not going to change, happy with it don't need to charge, didn't burst into flames so far.
This is quite dishonest to compare a $90k vs $30k one, should be same budget same size-ish.
Like Nissan leaf vs Mazda 3
Doesn't change the facts around EV battery safety, shit electronics in most etc
Also this need to be run not just for 10y but for the entire life of the car.
but you still haven't accounted for CO2 production to mine, refine and transport oil. One of the biggest contributors he purposely omitted to stack his numbers.
@@DIYMick totally true, I just rerun his dumb example with another electricity grid, and this completely change the outcome.
Greetings from a murrica ya bogan
I love the Redneck Paradise.
@@AutoExpertJC Most ozzies would gladly crawl across the Texas border just to fulfill the dream of washing dishes in a Chicago restaurant
@@pizzaearthpancakesandother2549
As long as it’s not the toilet of a parlour where you sell that disgusting thing you call pizza.
You’d need a concrete drill to get through the cheese clogging.
Our mullets are better
"People cued up over the fucking horizon" is going to get yet another type of people upset at you.
Standing ovation is well deserved.
@mini_steve We're going to run out of slate.
Where's the pool room?😅
Queued.
@simoncrooke1644 Fair play, I shouldn't drink, comment and post without first proof reading. My bad, thanks for the catch. I now hang my head in shame.
@@simoncrooke1644 I honestly didn't catch it.
How can you carry out an analysis of CO2 emissions from EVs versus ICE vehicles without including CO2 produced during the extraction and processing oil into diesel/petrol???
Because if he included it then he couldn’t manipulate the data to get a paltry 10% benefit for a compact mazda2 with unrealistic mileage
Never any Picanto love :( I have two cars both on opposite ends, a Pajero Sport for weekends and a Picanto for shopping and school run. I love it.
I almost bought a Mazda 2, because I have had a Mazda 3 for over 20 years, fantastic cars both. But I ended up getting a VW Polo R-Line, purely because the ride was much better, in my opinion.
I get about 2.5 times the MPG and only emit a third of the CO2, compared to the 20 year old Mazda 3.
There you go, thats my real contribution to the environment for 2024 🙂, jobs a goodun.
It would be a good idea to factor in the amount of CO2 produced in getting the watts to the power point compared to petrol to the bowser.
I dare say that would significantly skew the figures in favour of the EV.
And what about the 1500 oil tankers driving around the country with 15 tonnes of petrol to deliver to petrol stations Surely he didn’t miss that key part . Ignorance
@@sheepyracing2774 also the co2 generated in the extraction, refining, and in the case of Australia the transportation from Singapore. Over 90% of our finished fuel is imported.
@@brettsymons7172 I didn’t know that . Jesus . He really left that out didn’t he. I didn’t add the extraction part as EVs require extraction for lithium too .. but the transportation should have been included in his math as electricity doesn’t need transportation
@@sheepyracing2774 I think he included the full CO2 cost in manufacturing of the battery in his calculations. I assume that would include the CO2 generated in mining of the raw materials. Also he is giving us a snapshot of the moment. The amount of additional renewable energy that will be added to the grid over the next 10 years will be astronomical.
Regarding the exploration, construction, extraction, refining, transportation of fuel, I would assume that would have to add 20% to the emissions bill. Also not to mention the environmental cost of getting workers to and from site.
On an unrelated topic. Locally generated electricity helps with Australia’s terms of trade. We export $$$ for fuel.
Not to mention the cleaner air in the cities.
@@brettsymons7172 oh yea my bad it’s late night here . I’m overlooking things :) very well said ! More people need to read this
Hey John, thanks for this video, very interesting. Your Tesla figures include the energy delivery mechanism. But with the Mazda, did you consider the CO2 produced in order to deliver 10 years worth of fuel to the vehicle?
I would have also included the tires for both. The ev tires need to be so much stronger and cost more to produce etc they also wear a lot quicker due to the weight if the car, so more carbon and a lot more micro plastics in to the environment
You have forgotten the effect of the additional EV weight on the road. Heavier vehicles wear roads faster, and there is a notable Co2 impact. All the machines and products have a Co2 cost, being generous to EVs, they are destroying roads 50% faster than ICE vehicles.
@@HighFell Yep, forgot to add that myself.
@@HighFell looked up the tesla curb weights, they're no heavier than ICE cars/cuvs, so i'm not buying that argument except for true ICE Suv's where the equivalent would be a heck of a lot heavier in EV
@@18_rabbit like for like EV versions of vehicles are substantially heavier than ICE equivalent. Surely you are not arguing different? John’s video compares a Mazda 2 with a Tesla model Y. The Tesla is nearly a tonne heavier, it’s same right across vehicle types. If you compared a Ford Focus or Mazda 3 with the Y, the Y is 500kg more, 1/3rd heavier. Batteries are heavy. Of course you can always find a lardy ICE vehicle too and that’s fair enough, they are also wearing out roads at a more rapid rate than lighter vehicles.
Thank you for getting all the SI units and symbols correct.
I’d love to see a more apples for apples comparison maybe a Toyota Camry hybrid v a byd seal and factor in the battery being used for storage after its life in a car and the recycling cost for both vehicles. There’s no doubt that in an ideal world where power grids are renewable are powering manufacturing evs would be better for the environment but that far from reality. For me we need to see evs staying on the road for 15 years and as many as possible batteries being utilised as storage so more solar can be utilised during the evening peak even if they’re only 50% capacity at that point. Be interesting to see if that actually happens as time moves on because if we aren’t trying to extract ever ounce of usable value out of these batteries that were produced using fossil fuel then it’s all counter productive. But hey we’ve created a world based on marketing over science so who knows?
It's ironic I bought my EV for equanomic reasons as I figured that the trend of the price of petrol was only headed up. As for other reasons, yelling about "climate change" while trying as hard as possible to bury the raw data doesn't fill me with confidence about the claims. Another thing is the ever increasing complexity of doing anything but the most basic maintenance on a new petrol car myself. I kept my last car 13 years from new.
That Mazda 2 with a high compression, dedicated, liquid injection, LPG engine would emit 10 to 15% less CO2 again than the petrol version, with no loss of performance. It would else emit less NOx and virtually zero particulate matter. The Aus LPG conversion rebates only finished a decade ago, and then the whole infrastructure was allowed to implode. One can't help but wonder if the billions spent on the newest government golden child, the EV, will end up with the same fate?
yeah such a shame that LPG was let to implode. Very useful in many countries, including in Europe, for cars.
@@stocksucks9281 compressed natural gas can also be used in cars. And you can refuel at home. Honda usa used to sell a civic that ran on natural gas.
LPG helped the transition from carburettors and points ignition to fuel injection and better ignitions along with catalytic convertors etc. Not the great advantages there were back then. I would still have an LPG car for the clean running but the conversion costs are not economical nowadays. My XF did about 18,000 ks to break even on a $1600 conversion cost in 1991 and it paid it self off about 3 or 4 times over after that. When gas was cheap and petrol was dear, I saved about 60% and about 30% when gas was dear and petrol was cheap. Oil used to stay clean on the dipstick for 8000ks. My current car, a Holden Cruze running on mainly E10 is about the same condition on the dipstick at 12000ks thanks to the fuel and the engine design.
@@rjbiker66 In New Zealand in the 1980s we had Compressed natural gas (CNG) which could be added to a petrol vehicle with a tank in the boot.I had it in a Ford Cortina and there was an art to changing fuels on the go. From petrol to CNG you would switch the fuel off until the carburettor ran dry then turn on the gas. Obviously primitive by today’s standards but it worked well. Slowly died in NZ however my car was stolen before this.
Your arguments are correct. I have just done a research report on the characteristics of the sun's Global Horizontal Irradiation which applies to PV solar and if one wanted to charge an EV overnight, let's start with energy figures that may differ depending on individual circumstances.
For example, assuming a household wants to have rooftop PV solar and a storage battery, and use the battery for providing power for the household, the 10A power capacity for an electric shower, cater for the hot-water system, capacity for split system heat pumps, charging the EV.
In terms of energy, let's assume 13 kWh for the household (daily), 7 kWh for charging the EV overnight (for an average of 50 km daily range), one might contemplate using a 20 kWh battery, or let's say 2 x Tesla Powerwall 3 systems in parallel for something similar.
To charge the battery, or let's say to keep it topped up by taking advantage of charging when the sun shines, the PV solar system needs to have a capacity of around 10 kW, to charge the battery as quickly as possible and to leave some energy for the household while the sun is shining.
Now, the problem is as I see it, to put a 10 kW PV solar system on the roof, one might need close to 30 panels which raises the question as to how many rooftops in Australia have the area to mount so many panels. While in the UK the price per kWh for battery systems varies from 500-750 Pounds per kWh, the Telsa 3 power wall being at the lower end of the scale and also very innovate as it has capacity for two-way EV charging communication allowing ESP and USP (that is the EV providing the power for the household in case of grid outage).
My estimate is that a system with the feature set described above, including the multi-way and a few dedicated string-inverters, the software control and BMS, room for future expansion, ease of installation, and user-friendly and reliable operation will not only cost between $25,000-$35,000, but the number of PV panels required will not fit on most rooftops.
1) large model Y compared to a tiny ICE car (MG4 would be fairer)
2) no CO2 allowed for extraction, refining and transporting of fuel, oils and add all those filters, so you need to add 40% to your ICE car.
3) grid is getting greener and it's already greener than you think because much of the solar is behind the meter so it isn't in your numbers
4) V2G will reduce emissions
5) at the end of 10 years a LFP battery has another 10 years of grid service left in it so it continues to reduce grid emissions where as you ICE car is blowing smoke and ready for scraping
6) batteries are getting far greener and are using less CO2 to make year on year
7) so no allowance at all for solar charging is not kosher either, you need some sort of allowance as 60% of EV owners do have solar and those that don't are on cheap plans that prioritise renewable energy by making it cheaper to charge at times when renewable energy is plentiful.
@@rattusfinkus RE: point 2), in regard to adding 40%, you also need to add a range of percentages to the EV operation. For example the constant change of tyres, the damage done to the road, the ultimate recycling of the battery, the need to replace the EV with the slightest damage to the battery, the enormous damage done in case of an EV fire, the quick 10 year turnaround and disposal of EVs all adds further CO2 as well.
@@Ernst12 sorry chum an ice car also uses oil, filters and more brake pads and it also wears out tyres
@@Ernst12 a LFP battery lasts over a million KMs and will further reduce emissions by providing grid services before the natty is recycled. Sorry
@@Ernst12 where do you get 10 years from, MG offers lifetime warranty on the battery, power electronics and motor in Thailand and in Australia they off 10 years/ 250,000km. CATL has truck batteries with 1.5 million KMs warranty.
Off topic slightly.
Governments and power companies are getting a bit miffed about the idea of paying customers for power they supply to the grid and actually want customers to pay for it instead.
So
If you’re thinking about getting solar Do Not follow the usual model of supply your excess to the grid.
Work back the other way and off grid your home as much as possible and only sip from the grid what you need to charge your batteries when there’s not enough solar.
If you have an electrical engineer spec it out correctly and use DC capable appliances to cut the need for inverters , also program the system to only connect to the grid during the cheapest times and not peak not only would you reduce your alleged carbon footprint but actually reduce grid emissions by not simply wasting all that solar power that does absolutely nothing but give grid operators a headache.
oi, u just gave me a micro headache ! Here in 'murica' we dn't deal with all that, bcuz we're kinda stuck in the stone age here still, in so many ways.