My only criticism of the report (which I’ve not read yet but the video explained the fuel figures) is that they used WLTP for the fuel consumption numbers. Everyone knows they are complete nonsense in the real world, even the EPA estimates are a bit optimistic (for both ICE and BEV).
I’d be inclined to agree that the tipping point is likely to be achieved a bit earlier, if that argument is indeed correct (it’s logical that is is given the EV relies upon having a lower impact when driven).
Also if you drive your car around town you’ll achieve the tipping point much faster as you use way more fuel in an ICE compared to the WLTP figure per mile. BEV (and fuel cell?) isn’t nearly as badly impacted.
Again I’ll make clear I haven’t read it and I have only watched the above but I most certainly will read it in time.
Thats always being my issue and my point about people driving 10 year huge V8s that they should scrap their cars and buy an electric one. When comparing to a 10 year old, you may well find you need to do over 100,000 miles on an EV before you would see any net CO2 gain.
It also means for my parents driving small engined cars and doing around 3500 miles per year, co2 wise it would be overall much more damaging for them to swap to buying EVs as the break even point is around 15 years.
I don’t think anyone sensible is saying that? What they are saying is that when they do, they buy an electric one. In terms of impact, the best car is the one you already own. But that isn’t now things work in reality as people want new cars all the time and don’t value used/old cars.
Also see my point above about mileage figures. I assume that 3500 miles are mostly town driving and they get nothing like the WLTP number. You would need to cut that cross over point significantly.
If a car is going to be bought anyway it doesn't really matter what the cut off point for CO2 parity is, so long as eventually that car covers that many miles it will eventually pay off purely from a CO2 POV.
Isn’t there also a wider point that while an EV has a bigger C02 impact to produce now, that gap will get closer and closer over time as the supply chains reduce their impact.
Eventually (and by 2050 of you believe the Paris agreement) there should basically be nothing in it.
As we already know, when it comes to the impact of driving, ICE is just never going to be able to reduce its impact in the same way that a BEV could in time. Again in theory, by 2050, the net impact of the grid should be zero. An ICE is never going to be able to match that. So in essence the BEV is already better but the direction of travel also favours the BEV. The question really is how quickly it can get to net zero and not if it is lower impact than ice which could never realistically get to net zero.