New study shows converting to electric vehicles alone won’t meet climate targets

Posted: September 29, 2020 by oldbrew in Emissions, modelling, research, solar system dynamics, Travel
Tags: ,

Teslas in Norway [image credit: Norsk Elbilforening (Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association)]

Delete ‘alone’. The study is essentially redundant, as a reduction from 0.04% of carbon dioxide’s very small share of the atmosphere won’t do anything noticeable to the climate anyway. However it does highlight some difficulties with the current policies pretending to ‘tackle the climate crisis’, such as the massive increase in electricity generation needed to power hundreds of millions of electric vehicles. Closing down all thermal power plants is not compatible with such a policy, as the researchers admit, but climate obsessives may not want to face up to that.
– – –
Today there are more than 7 million electric vehicles (EVs) in operation around the world, compared with only about 20,000 a decade ago, says

It’s a massive change—but according to a group of University of Toronto Engineering researchers, it won’t be nearly enough to address the global climate crisis.

“A lot of people think that a large-scale shift to EVs will mostly solve our climate problems in the passenger vehicle sector” says Alexandre Milovanoff, lead author of a new paper published today in Nature Climate Change.

“I think a better way to look at it is this: EVs are necessary, but on their own, they are not sufficient.”

Around the world, many governments are already going all-in on EVs. In Norway, for example, where EVs already account for half of new vehicle sales, the government has said it plans to eliminate sales of new internal combustion vehicles altogether by 2025. The Netherlands aims to follow suit by 2030, with France and Canada to follow by 2040.

Milovanoff and his supervisors, Professors Daniel Posen and Heather MacLean are experts in life cycle assessment—modelling the impacts of technological changes across a range of environmental factors.

They decided to run a detailed analysis of what a large-scale shift to EVs would mean in terms of emissions and related impacts. As a test market, they chose the United States, which is second only to China in terms of passenger vehicle sales.

“We picked the U.S. because they have large, heavy vehicles, as well as high vehicle ownership per capita and high rate of travel per capita,” says Milovanoff. “There is also lots of high-quality data available, so we felt it would give us the clearest answers.”

The team built computer models to estimate how many electric vehicles would be needed to keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100, a target often cited by climate researchers.

“We came up with a novel method to convert this target into a carbon budget for U.S. passenger vehicles, and then determined how many EVs would be needed to stay within that budget,” says Posen. “It turns out to be a lot.”

Based on the scenarios modelled by the team, the U.S. would need to have about 350 million EVs on the road by 2050 in order to meet the target emissions reductions. That works out to about 90% of the total vehicles estimated to be in operation at that time.

“To put that in perspective, right now the total proportion of EVs on the road in the U.S. is about 0.3%,” says Milovanoff.

Full article here.

Study: Electrification of light-duty vehicle fleet alone will not meet mitigation targets

  1. JB says:

    “I think a better way to look at it is this:”

    Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

    Scrap. Reboot.

  2. saighdear says:

    @JB now that got to the point! quite agree.

  3. hunterson7 says:

    When nothing ever meets “the goal”, it is time to question the goal.

  4. tom0mason says:

    The whole piece is built on the fake idea that atmospheric CO2 controls the climate.
    Only scientific dunces such as Alexandre Milovanoff, Professors Daniel Posen, and Heather MacLean and many other who obsess about CO2 levels could believe (for that is all they have) this nonsense.

  5. oldbrew says:

    It’s taken nearly two centuries for CO2 to get from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere, which still makes it a trace gas only.

    If the climate is warming and that’s seen as a problem, tinkering with CO2 levels isn’t going to resolve it. So all the hullaballoo about it is utterly pointless.
    – – –
    How Green Are Electric Cars?
    Date: 29/09/20 Press Release, Global Warming Policy Foundation

    Debate over environmental impacts continues

    How green are electric cars? Are they really greener and more environmentally friendly than the cleanest conventional cars? That’s a question that is dividing opinion, even among green campaigners.

    EVs are good news for the mining industry but not much else.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Government road tax payment site now promoting EVs

    Fully electric cars are designed to be as efficient as possible and there are generally 3 main components powering the vehicle; the on-board charger, inverter and motor. This means there is far less wear and tear on the car and little stress on the motor, with fewer moving parts susceptible to damage. All this means you’ll rarely have to have your EV serviced and the running and repair costs are minimal. [bold added]

    Um…do they have brakes, tyres, steering, suspension…electrical parts even?

  7. ivan says:

    Oldbrew, the parts you question are supposed to be made of pixie dust so won’t evah need servicing or replacement but the charging requires a vast application of unicorn farts to work.

    Whoever comes up with all this stupidity needs their heads examined because they have been drinking too much of the GW koolaid.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Electric car servicing explained

    That said, intervals vary greatly between makes and models. For example, the all-electric Kia e-Niro should be serviced once a year or every 10,000 miles (whichever happens first) according to Kia. Meanwhile, a petrol Nissan Qashqai only needs servicing every year or 18,000 miles.
    – – –
    oldbrew says: Not forgetting that a fully serviced ICE (engine) will easily outlast an EV battery and such vehicles should therefore hold their value better, other things being equal – which they aren’t, as climate-obsessed governments try to see them off.

  9. stpaulchuck says:

    watch the lights at home go out sooner, and more often once the cars hit the grid for a recharge, ha ha ha.

  10. saighdear says:

    @Oldbrew. Aye, Using a 7kW home charging port, most EVs can charge to full capacity in around 8 – 12hours for an 8 – 9 hr working day +2 hrs travelling time, when I return home – have to go here ‘n there afterwards – no 12 hrs left in the day to charge the car. AND at 7kW load, at the end of a 240V single phase line, “How do they do that” ? – Powerlines just cannot carry the power – when we try to start a 5hp electric motor, startup current sends neighbours in a froth at teatime as lights dim and upsets elecronic stuff ( still ).
    ANYWAY could someone CLEARLY EXPLAIN HOW ( from an Energy balalnce) 7kw IN x 8hrs =56kwHrs. so when my car runs for 2 hrs to consume that power = 28kW per hour – HOW COMEmost modern cars appear to need over 100hp ? MAy as well get a large B&S lawnmower engine for the job, OR! have one in the boot to run the 7kw charger …… doesn’t add up

  11. pochas94 says:

    Electric power shortage? Who would have thunk it.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Green fantasy crumbles daily…

    Current technologies cannot deliver half of 2050 carbon emissions reduction goal
    Oct 2, 2020

    Lead scientist, Professor Bob Rees, from Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), stressed the need for new innovations to further reduce emissions beyond the levels that currently known mitigation strategies will deliver.

    The report has identified that even if all known methods for mitigation of carbon emissions were taken up rapidly, the industry could only deliver 19% of the aspirational carbon reduction target by 2035, highlighting the urgent need to advance technologies and develop new innovations to address this critical issue.”
    – – –
    Knocking a tiny amount off 0.04% global CO2 in the atmosphere is a critical UK issue? Delusional.

    ‘advance technologies and develop new innovations’
    Dreamland waffle again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s