Support CleanTechnica's work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe. Carmaker lobby ACEA wants to turn Europe’s car regulation into a “Swiss cheese — full of holes.” The car industry is demanding loopholes in the EU car CO2 law that would halve the bloc’s ambition of selling only zero-emission cars in ... [continued]
if you don’t consider fuel transport emissions, I don’t see what’s the problem with classifying cars that run on renewable gasoline/diesel to have zero emissions.
No vehicle has zero emmissions due to manufacturing, for maintenance etc. The electricity is not zero emmissions either. First of all, it’s not 100% renewable and second, even if it was we’d at least have emmissions for manufacturing and maintenance of solar cells, turbines etc.
Furthermore, emmissions is not only CO2. There’s also microplastics and - in case of combustion engine cars - you still have harmful substances when burning the (hypothetically existing) e-fuels.
BEVs aren’t perfect, but the overall energy required during the lifecycle is significantly lower. And energy in this context more or less equals harm to the environment.
From my perspective, no form of transport should be labeled zero emmissions, but if we allow that label it should be only granted to the most efficient options per sector which is BEVs for cars.
While “less sick” is technically “healthier”, if you live near a highway you really should be thinking in terms of degrees of sickness, because that thing will be harming you. Also, consider how your life expectancy is being reduced considerably thanks to vehicle noise, which is barely different between ICE and EVs at highway speeds
And they don’t count oil mining, and in that famous white paper by Volvo every asshole quotes but didn’t read, they compare carbon costs of EVs to ICE if the motor and transmission metals in ICE are excluded.
Anything burning something cannot have zero emissions.
if you don’t consider fuel transport emissions, I don’t see what’s the problem with classifying cars that run on renewable gasoline/diesel to have zero emissions.
No vehicle has zero emmissions due to manufacturing, for maintenance etc. The electricity is not zero emmissions either. First of all, it’s not 100% renewable and second, even if it was we’d at least have emmissions for manufacturing and maintenance of solar cells, turbines etc.
Furthermore, emmissions is not only CO2. There’s also microplastics and - in case of combustion engine cars - you still have harmful substances when burning the (hypothetically existing) e-fuels.
BEVs aren’t perfect, but the overall energy required during the lifecycle is significantly lower. And energy in this context more or less equals harm to the environment.
From my perspective, no form of transport should be labeled zero emmissions, but if we allow that label it should be only granted to the most efficient options per sector which is BEVs for cars.
There are also lakes of used oil and mountains of parts ICE generate while on the road.
Agree, but if you live next to a highway, zero emissions means you’ll be healthier. So in that way the label makes sense.
While “less sick” is technically “healthier”, if you live near a highway you really should be thinking in terms of degrees of sickness, because that thing will be harming you. Also, consider how your life expectancy is being reduced considerably thanks to vehicle noise, which is barely different between ICE and EVs at highway speeds
And they don’t count oil mining, and in that famous white paper by Volvo every asshole quotes but didn’t read, they compare carbon costs of EVs to ICE if the motor and transmission metals in ICE are excluded.
Anything burning something cannot have zero emissions.