• jaume

Fake news about e-mobility

Aktualisiert: Feb 1


The truth of research reports about e-mobility, misuse of convenience datas through fossil car makers and stakeholders.

TITLE:

"The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lithium-Ion Batteries" (known as the Sweden study (Mai 2017))

AUTHORS:

Mia Romare, Lisbeth Dahllöf

LINK


This study has been misused from a lot of BEV haters to pickup the famous value of 17,5Tons CO2 equivalent to produce the battery of the Tesla Model S.

Another wrong value is the "break even point" of 200.000km that a BEV will need to be driven in order to have less CO2 emissions than a fossil car.

But anyway this values appear again and again, even after they have been refuted from different researchers including Mia Romare and Lisbeth Dahllöf the authors of the famous sweden study.

The last referral of this study that we have suffered has appeared on April 2019 in Germany in a study of three researchers Christoph Buchal, Hans-Dieter Karl and Hans-Werner Sinn from the IFO Institut. In their study they conclude that a diesel car like the Mercedes C220 pollutes less than a Tesla Model 3.

Is that a serious study made by neutral researchers? Or even a new advertisement against BEV cars?

What is the purpose of such a wrongful "research report"?

We think this "researchers" are not really aware about the harm that they are causing to the German and also the European industrie with this kind of wrong reports.

But let's analize this report in detail:

TITLE:

"Kohlemotoren, Windmotoren und Dieselmotoren: Was zeigt die CO2-Bilanz?"

AUTHORS:

Buchal Christoph, Karl Hans-Dieter, Sinn Hans-Werner

LINK


This report went suspiciously quickly viral through the following German medias:

Focus online, Stern, Süddeutsche Zeitung, n-tv, Spiegel, Auto Motor Sport, Kicker, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Autozeitung, ZDF, Firmenauto, Die Welt, etc


First fake:

Comparing a Tesla Model 3 with 473Hp with the Mercedes C220D with 194Hp.

The comparison between this to cars is not fair because of the difference of power.

No one will take a comparison as serious if the compared products have not similar characteristics. For example, a comparison between a Mercedes C220D (194Hp) and an Audi RS4 (450Hp) in terms of efficiency and consumption is not really possible. In oder words: it makes no sense!


Second fake:

Taking wrong values of fuel consumption.

Instead of taking real values (very easy to have for example by https://www.spritmonitor.de) this researchers took the official values of NEFZ, everybody knows that the NEFZ values are not realistic.

For example:

by Mercedes C220D, NEFZ Value: 4,5l/100km, real value 6,91l/100km -->35% error

by Tesla Model 3, NEFZ Value: 15kWh/100km, real value 17,62kWh/100km -->15% error


In this case using NEFZ values instead of real ones contributes to present the fossil cars better than they are. But this procedure helps the authors in their objectives, and is useful to put BEV cars into negative light.


Third fake:

Using fake values of the foot print by the battery production, and forgetting to discount the savings due to the missing of fossil components like the exhaust system, ice motor, Tank, catalyser, oil, etc.


Fourth fake:

Using fake values of CO2 emissions due to charge the car with the average electricity produced in Germany (Values 2017: carbon and fossil plants aprox. 55%, green energy 35%, atom 10%). And ignoring that a lot of BEV drivers charge their cars only with green energy and this behaviour contributes to accelerate the transition to the 100% green energy generation. Ignoring also the effects of this transition in the future.


Fifth fake:

Using shorter battery live values to calculate the average foot print.

Assuming a batterie life value of 150.000km during ten years instead of more realistic values (already confirmed on real test with the Tesla Model S) like 1.500.000km. And also ignoring the possibility to use forward this batteries on a second live outside of the cars.


Omissions:

Of course the authors don't mention other factors about the fossil cars like NOx emissions or like the pollution due to particles in the air emitted by the internal combustion engines.


Conclusions:

This report ist not really made by neutral researchers in the name of progress, however it is done by political purpose to protect their old industry feeding the medias with wrong data and contributing to demonize new technologies. Unfortunately they don't realize that they are causing just the opposite effect. The transition to BEV cars is already unstoppable. If Europe hang on old fossil technologies we will loose more jobs instead of changing and contributing with our creativity and knowledge to a new world better statement.


P.S.

On February 2019 Fraunhofer Institut issued the following report written by the authors Martin Wietschel, Matthias Kühnbach and David Rüdiger showing antagonist results:

https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/sustainability-innovation/2019/WP02-2019_Treibhausgasemissionsbilanz_von_Fahrzeugen.pdf

We can really appreciate this publication because of its neutrality and professionality, but we wonder why this publication hasn't been as relevant on German medias as the unfortunate publication of the IFO Institut.


At 3Dthinks we believe on the transition to sustainable energy and we join the mission to accelerate the change to green technologies.


27 Ansichten