Buy all your VW California Accessories at the Club Shop Visit Shop
You haven’t mentioned the extraction of oil. Interesting to see how this comment is weathering the passage of time, with the current boom in camper van sales.
Clever comment. As far as I am aware Hydrocarbons are still used in the manufacture and running of any EV, even in the production of the " clean " electricity. Unless of course you know differently.
Yes, exactly. The point of the linked article, which you might find it interesting to actually read, is that the total amount of hydrocarbons used in electrics, from manufacturer through use, is less than ICE.Clever comment. As far as I am aware Hydrocarbons are still used in the manufacture and running of any EV, even in the production of the " clean " electricity. Unless of course you know differently.
The point is that they produce less of it...
So that addresses CO2 production, what about Environmental Pollution?
Who is? The link in the OP's report is about specific research into CO2 emissions. I think you'll struggle to find any research group with the expertise or funding to investigate every single element of the environmental impact of an entire industrial design and manufacturing process, particularly one as complex as modern vehicles, and ditto for the content of papers in Nature (let's ignore things like Cochrane reviews for now, on the basis that they're aggregations of ground-level research which still has to be done in order for them to exist).
But that is the whole point. By concentrating on 1 factor, in this case CO2 production we are leaving ourselves open to the next environmental disaster. Nothing stands on its own, everything is interconnected in one way or another. The Law of Unintended Consequences has still not been addressed, as exemplified by the Dash for Diesel.
www.seatrade-maritime.com
Or other potential problems for the future. If electric cars go bigtime surely we'll be looking at nuclear generated electricity to meet demand.
I don't disagree, but, again, the OP's linked paper is looking at production of new vehicles. Even if it's not you buying them, someone else will. The paper doesn't say you should bin your diesel and buy a new car. It's saying that when your diesel packs in, if you're staring at an EV or a diesel on the forecourt then the EV will have emitted less CO2 during its production and will emit less CO2 during it's running lifetime. You're conflating research about the CO2 emissions of new purchases with your own position in the purchase cycle and with other elements of the production process.
But who is "we"? And how did you reach your conclusion that "we" are "concentrating on 1 factor"? The OP's link is one paper in one journal. The scientists who wrote this paper aren't responsible for researching every aspect of this process. They simply put their expertise into one component, and society/politicians then have to aggregate the various components into policy. A necessary part of that process is reporting each individual element, and that's exactly what you're seeing here. It's how the scientific method works. Just because the OP linked to posts about CO2 emissions doesn't mean that there isn't a whole heap of research going on into the other individual elements and how they inter-link. It simply means it hasn't been posted so far in this thread on a VW California forum - surprisingly, it's out there in scientific journals instead. It's therefore simply not valid to discount one strand of the research on the basis that you just haven't seen the rest.
I've read many papers regarding the wider aspect of the environmental impact regarding the Dash for EV. The problem is only the +tve research is published, as on this Forum and in the Media generally. Only those who are prepared to delve more deeply find that EVs are possibly not the best environmentally and that we are on a slippery slope to the next environmental disaster. So just putting the record straight. EVs are not smelling of roses and don't believe everything you read in the media. Search a little deeper.
I can’t think of any reason why such a filthy method of producing energy, which leaves as its waste the most toxic substance known to man with a half life of 250,000 years, a morally contemptible legacy to future generations, would ever be considered. There are so many alternatives. Many countries around the world have been using a combination of solar and wind to power pumping water to higher elevations as a battery for storing energy for over half a century. I just visited a famous one near Munich which will be 100 years old in 2024.
I look at that graph which presumes to show the environmental impact of nuclear, while ignoring the fact that the extremely deadly waste it produces will only be reduced by half after 125 times the amount of years that Christ has been dead, and I’m not surprised that this article has been posted, or that some think future generations should pick up the tab for our excesses.Environmental impact of the energy industry - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
They also contained mercury & after they have expired, usually years before their stated lifespan have to be treated as hazardous waste & not just thrown into general landfill. None of which the general consumer was warned about before buying.
But that is the root of the problem, we are a disposable society, we should be producing vehicles with the aim of them lasting longer, although I would suggest that calis are far better than most and will be used for years longer than most cars.
The VW California Club is the worlds largest resource for all owners and enthusiasts of VW California campervans.
