Shock: Electric Vehicles Emit More CO2 Than Diesel Cars

From your link.

Diesel engines took a huge, disgraceful hit when Volkswagen was exposed for installing software on its vehicles designed to cheat emissions tests. But the fact remains that diesels are more efficient than gasoline engines—and according to one recent study, newer models are cleaner, except for their higher emissions of nitrogen oxides. This problem has led to heavily decreased sales of diesels in Europe, while some big cities such as Paris are now planning to ban diesels. Meanwhile, sales of all-electric and hybrid cars are rapidly increasing in Europe.

FWIW:

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/as...ar-engines?amp Originally Posted by bambino

From your link.

Diesel engines took a huge, disgraceful hit when Volkswagen was exposed for installing software on its vehicles designed to cheat emissions tests. But the fact remains that diesels are more efficient than gasoline engines—and according to one recent study, newer models are cleaner, except for their higher emissions of nitrogen oxides. This problem has led to heavily decreased sales of diesels in Europe, while some big cities such as Paris are now planning to ban diesels. Meanwhile, sales of all-electric and hybrid cars are rapidly increasing in Europe.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I know, if you were paying attention I posted I had a Passat TDI which they bought back at a profit for me. The thing was overblown. VW retrofitted the cars that people wanted to keep. Except the 3litre engines. People who had it done said the difference in performance was negligible. The bottomline line is, they produced great mpg’s with a lower carbon footprint. But diesels do produce higher NO2 emissions. But newer diesels are closer to their gas counterparts now. I would buy a diesel again.

I was paying attension. Car brands or models or whatever you claim to have made money on has nothing to do with this story. And a car manufacturer cheating on emission standards isn't overblown.
I'm not pro or con on diesels. The OP said diesels were cleaner because they emit less CO2 than electric cars + the energy it takes to make the batteries to run them. From there they leaped to the conclusion, based only on CO2 levels, that diesels have fewer emissions than an electric car. That's not true.
The nitrogen oxides are more harmful than CO2.
The story promotes the sale and virtues of diesels at a time sales are rapidly dropping and they fail to include the info about overall emissions. And the ones they don't mention are the worst.
At least one major city is considering a ban on them.

I know, if you were paying attention I posted I had a Passat TDI which they bought back at a profit for me. The thing was overblown. VW retrofitted the cars that people wanted to keep. Except the 3litre engines. People who had it done said the difference in performance was negligible. The bottomline line is, they produced great mpg’s with a lower carbon footprint. But diesels do produce higher NO2 emissions. But newer diesels are closer to their gas counterparts now. I would buy a diesel again. Originally Posted by bambino

I was paying attension. Car brands or models or whatever you claim to have made money on has nothing to do with this story. And a car manufacturer cheating on emission standards isn't overblown.
I'm not pro or con on diesels. The OP said diesels were cleaner because they emit less CO2 than electric cars + the energy it takes to make the batteries to run them. From there they leaped to the conclusion, based only on CO2 levels, that diesels have fewer emissions than an electric car. That's not true.
The nitrogen oxides are more harmful than CO2.
The story promotes the sale and virtues of diesels at a time sales are rapidly dropping and they fail to include the info about overall emissions. And the ones they don't mention are the worst.
At least one major city is considering a ban on them. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

My point is that I’m well aware of the VW emissions scandal because I owned one. I know more about it than you do. They payed the latrgest fines and penalties in Automotive history. Part of the judgement was VW had to offer buybacks at an attractive price. They offered much more than my car was worth otherwise. If you chose to keep your car they paid you 5k plus retro fitting your emission system. All told, VW paid north of five billion for the fuck up. Funny thing is, they never had to do it. People would have bought as many TDI’s with the appropriate emission control systems. Heads rolled, as they should have. Martin Winterkorn, the CEO at the time, is facing jail time. But for decades, Europeans favored diesels. High fuel costs pushed them that way. As for a city banning them? Big whoop. Liberals love to ban things they don’t like or understand. Like Bloomberg banning biggy size sodas in NYC. Like who the fuck is he anyways. Or worse, Obama forcing people to buy into his crappy HC system or get fined.

http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/tesla/

Tesla sold 32,000 cars last year. A whopping 1% market share. Who needs to ban them. Nobody wants them.

If it wasn’t for subsidies, Tesla would be gone. Just like Solyndra:

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/inve...idies-14769263

Blah, blah, blah.
What does VW have to do with the OP? Mention of it comes from your link

Like I said.
None of that has anything to do with the OP.
And since you claim VW actions were overblown (largest fines and penalties for an overblown action), no point in arguing "knowledge" with you since you missed that point and the OP point as well.

My point is that I’m well aware of the VW emissions scandal because I owned one. I know more about it than you do. They payed the latrgest fines and penalties in Automotive history. Part of the judgement was VW had to offer buybacks at an attractive price. They offered much more than my car was worth otherwise. If you chose to keep your car they paid you 5k plus retro fitting your emission system. All told, VW paid north of five billion for the fuck up. Funny thing is, they never had to do it. People would have bought as many TDI’s with the appropriate emission control systems. Heads rolled, as they should have. Martin Winterkorn, the CEO at the time, is facing jail time. But for decades, Europeans favored diesels. High fuel costs pushed them that way. As for a city banning them? Big whoop. Liberals love to ban things they don’t like or understand. Like Bloomberg banning biggy size sodas in NYC. Like who the fuck is he anyways. Or worse, Obama forcing people to buy into his crappy HC system or get fined.

http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/tesla/

Tesla sold 32,000 cars last year. A whopping 1% market share. Who needs to ban them. Nobody wants them.

If it wasn’t for subsidies, Tesla would be gone. Just like Solyndra:

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/inve...idies-14769263 Originally Posted by bambino

All told, VW paid north of five billion for the fuck up. Funny thing is, they never had to do it. People would have bought as many TDI’s with the appropriate emission control systems. Heads rolled, as they should have. Martin Winterkorn, the CEO at the time, is facing jail time. Originally Posted by bambino

It cost VW more like $30 billion. Like BP and the large banks which were all sued for selling mortgages, the U.S. government and plaintiffs lawyers screwed Volkswagen. Yes, big companies need much more than a slap on the wrist when they fuck up big time, but regulators and courts should also consider the effect on jobs and the economy.

If batteries for an electric car throw off 11 to 15 tons of carbon over a 10 year life, which is what Dalai Lama's article says, I wonder how we get to "0" net carbon emissions by 2050 or earlier. I think that's proposed by most of the Democratic candidates running for President. A passenger car averaging 22 miles per gallon, 11,500 miles per year, emits about 4.6 tons per year. If we're using batteries to store energy produced by solar and wind for when it's not sunny or windy, that compounds the problem.

It cost VW more like $30 billion. Like BP and the large banks which were all sued for selling mortgages, the U.S. government and plaintiffs lawyers screwed Volkswagen. Yes, big companies need much more than a slap on the wrist when they fuck up big time, but regulators and courts should also consider the effect on jobs and the economy.

If batteries for an electric car throw off 11 to 15 tons of carbon over a 10 year life, which is what Dalai Lama's article says, I wonder how we get to "0" net carbon emissions by 2050 or earlier. I think that's proposed by most of the Democratic candidates running for President. A passenger car averaging 22 miles per gallon, 11,500 miles per year, emits about 4.6 tons per year. If we're using batteries to store energy produced by solar and wind for when it's not sunny or windy, that compounds the problem. Originally Posted by Tiny

At the time I was dealing with them it was “north” of 5 billion. After my settlement I didn’t follow it closely. It was a disaster for them in any account. But it’s a pittance compared to Trumps fight for fair trade and immigration. VW is doing just fine now. So is our country.

The REALLY Inconvenient truths are They are worse for the environment ( end of story )

Blah, blah, blah.
What does VW have to do with the OP? Mention of it comes from your link

Like I said.
None of that has anything to do with the OP.
And since you claim VW actions were overblown (largest fines and penalties for an overblown action), no point in arguing "knowledge" with you since you missed that point and the OP point as well. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The point of the OP IS diesel vehicles. And VW’s scandal was all about Diesel engines and the environment. I was sharing some “knowledge” with the thread. And the amount of emissions VW cheated on was small. So yes, the fines and penalties were overblown. Especially in the US. Other countries weren’t as punitive. It is you that is confused and missed the point of the thread.,As usual.