GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Now the steel industry is turning its back on coal!!

India Looks To Green Hydrogen For Steelmaking As Coking Coal Costs Rise

India Looks To Green Hydrogen For Steelmaking As Coking Coal Costs Rise | OilPrice.com

New steel plant operating using green energy electricity only in Germany opened yesterday.

voestalpine opens world’s most advanced special steel plant in Kapfenberg - voestalpine

Premature to say "turning its back".... we will see.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Here is the poll showing that Americans are turning their backs on EVs and embracing the reality of fossil fuel vehicles.

British consumers have also turned their backs on EVs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/new-yahoo-finance-ipsos-poll-shows-over-half-of-americans-unlikely-to-buy-an-ev-130040140.html

"When asked what concerns them most about buying an electric vehicle, 70% of respondents in the Yahoo Finance/Ipsos poll were worried about overall cost, 73% were concerned about driving range, and 77% noted lack of charging stations on the road or charging at home."

Edited October 19, 2023 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,102]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the poll showing that Americans are turning their backs on EVs and embracing the reality of fossil fuel vehicles.

British consumers have also turned their backs on EVs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/new-yahoo-finance-ipsos-poll-shows-over-half-of-americans-unlikely-to-buy-an-ev-130040140.html

"When asked what concerns them most about buying an electric vehicle, 70% of respondents in the Yahoo Finance/Ipsos poll were worried about overall cost, 73% were concerned about driving range, and 77% noted lack of charging stations on the road or charging at home."

EVs have only been on the market on a large scale for a couple of years ...and now 23 percent are all in for buying them

 

Rome was not built overnight

 

Luddites are very slow people

when digital cameras came out (it was invented in 1975) the same problem existed..........

 

Kodak developed it and then abandoned the whole business

A majority of people said they would never use on or switch from using film, by 2000 Kodak was toast

U.S. Patent No. 4,131,919 for an electronic still camera in 1978, but the project never went beyond the prototype stage. Sasson estimated that image resolution wouldn’t be competitive with chemical photography until sometime between 1990 and 1995, and that was enough for Kodak to mothball the project.

Digital photography took nearly two decades to take off

While Kodak chose to withdraw from digital photography, other companies, including Sony and Fuji, continued to move ahead. After Sony introduced the Mavica, an analog electronic camera, in 1981, Kodak decided to restart its digital camera effort. During the ’80s and into the ’90s, companies made incremental improvements, releasing products that sold for astronomical prices and found limited audiences.

Try buying film for a camera today...........

 

Is Kodak still in business.......

are old cameras that use film worth anything?????

Gas stations......long term.................will be EV charging stations if they can compete with home charging

Enjoy the transition............Luddites will be the only ones driving ICE clunkers in 20 years

 

 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Wild-eyed environmentalist climate alarmists are losing in court. This bodes well for the American oil companies currently being challenged by nuisance lawsuits from California alarmists.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Environmentalists-Lose-Court-Challenge-To-New-UK-Oil-And-Gas-Licenses.html

"Justice David Holgate of the High Court dismissed the environmentalists’ claims for judicial review, writing in the ruling that the government’s decision not to take the emissions from burning of the end products into account was lawful and not irrational. 

“There was no internal inconsistency between the approach taken by the Secretary of State to whether end use emissions should be assessed as a likely significant effect of the Plan and his comparison of reasonable alternatives,” Justice Holgate wrote."

Edited October 19, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

American consumers have finally figured out that EVs are not the future of private transportation and the walls have now crumbled around the Green transportation fantasy.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tesla-Loses-100B-In-Market-Cap-In-Single-Day-After-Musk-Paints-Gloomy-Picture.html

"The earnings call was so downbeat that Tesla saw about $100B in market cap erased in just over a day.

For its Q3 report, Tesla reported $2.35 billion in revenue and $1.85 billion in profits—down from Q2. Profits were also down compared to the same quarter last year.

The company's Cybertruck is set for a November 30 launch from its Texas factory, but Musk warned that there were "enormous challenges" with scaling Cybertruck production and making it cashflow positive."

Edited October 20, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Rob Plant + 2,656]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the poll showing that Americans are turning their backs on EVs and embracing the reality of fossil fuel vehicles.

British consumers have also turned their backs on EVs.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/new-yahoo-finance-ipsos-poll-shows-over-half-of-americans-unlikely-to-buy-an-ev-130040140.html

"When asked what concerns them most about buying an electric vehicle, 70% of respondents in the Yahoo Finance/Ipsos poll were worried about overall cost, 73% were concerned about driving range, and 77% noted lack of charging stations on the road or charging at home."

I agree in the US you don't have the infrastructure away from cities/towns at present, but you will eventually.

Some parts of Europe dont either but they are catching up with countries like Germany, France, Scandinavia, UK etc

Costs relative to ICE will fall, servicing is far cheaper, less components to go wrong, fuel is way cheaper, so all of those factors have to be considered in relation to cost.

Range anxiety is an issue I agree, but this is being overcome as more people adopt EV's and prove its no big deal to be able to drive 250 miles then stop for a comfort break and a coffee whilst their vehicle is recharging. Battery rech is improving rapidly and this will mitigate range anxiety in the near future IMHO.

Government and in the US State mandates will mean that EV's WILL be the mainstream form of transportation for the average Joe. Those mandates are already in place for many States and no they wont repeal them Eco before you say they will.

[Rob Plant + 2,656]

13 hours ago, notsonice said:

re old cameras that use film worth anything?????

Actually really old ones are as nobody has them anymore so theyre antiques, sort of proves your overall point though doesnt it!

[Rob Plant + 2,656]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

American consumers have finally figured out that EVs are not the future of private transportation and the walls have now crumbled around the Green transportation fantasy.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tesla-Loses-100B-In-Market-Cap-In-Single-Day-After-Musk-Paints-Gloomy-Picture.html

"The earnings call was so downbeat that Tesla saw about $100B in market cap erased in just over a day.

For its Q3 report, Tesla reported $2.35 billion in revenue and $1.85 billion in profits—down from Q2. Profits were also down compared to the same quarter last year.

The company's Cybertruck is set for a November 30 launch from its Texas factory, but Musk warned that there were "enormous challenges" with scaling Cybertruck production and making it cashflow positive."

Musk and Tesla were the EV pioneers. The major car manufacturers globally are now catching up rapidly which is good as it will drive more competition and make EV's more affordable and therefore more sales to Joe public.

Byd have captured the lions share of the China market which is the main contributor to Tesla's reduced profitability. I'm sure Musk isnt too unhappy.

Tesla are still making $1.85B profit in a qtr which isnt to be sniffed at!!

BYD financials

OverviewCompareFinancials

 

 

 

Search Results

 

Stock price

 

 

63.36 USD

19 Oct, 14:44 BST • Disclaimer

 

Main results

 

Financials

Quarterly financials

 

JUN 2023

 

MAR 2023

 

DEC 2022

 

SEPT 2022

 

(CNY)	Jun 2023	Y/Y
Revenue	139.95B	67.04%
Net income	6.82B	144.87%
Diluted EPS	2.35	147.37%
Net profit margin	4.88%	46.55%
Operating income	8.02B	145.99%
Net change in cash	24.34B	4208.56%
Cash on hand	-	-
Cost of revenue	113.74B	58.58%

[bloodman33 + 20]

Oil company reparations! They must be held accountable!  Long live AOC my queen.

CNN — 

Billions of snow crabs have disappeared from the ocean around Alaska in recent years, and scientists now say they know why: Warmer ocean temperatures likely caused them to starve to death.

[bloodman33 + 20]

Buy VLO, Venezuela deal is on!  Buy MTDR, TNK, STNG, SFL, DHT.  Make me rich!  Give to my queen AOC!

Thank you Ecocharger for donating.  I knew in reality you would come around. 

[turbguy + 1,436]

12 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Actually really old ones are as nobody has them anymore so theyre antiques, sort of proves your overall point though doesnt it!

Surprisingly, an old 620 size film SPOOL will get you about $4-$5 on eBay.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,141]

On 10/14/2023 at 7:44 PM, Ron Wagner said:

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/new-york-denies-offshore-wind-developer-request-raise-rates-throwing-more

 

ENERGY

/sites/default/files/styles/card/public/2023-10/GettyImages-1253690396_0.jpg?h=9aaba3c2&itok=Gu6ZyUG8

New York denies offshore wind developer request to raise rates, throwing more projects into doubt

By Kevin Killough

East Coast wind projects are in jeopardy after a decision by New York regulators Thursday to deny requests from renewable energy developers to charge customers billions of dollars more.

Offshore wind developers say they have have been struggling against record inflation, supply chain issues, and interest rate hikes. Facing these pressures, Orsted, BP, and Equinor and other renewable developers requested that contracts for four offshore projects and 86 land-based projects be renegotiated, according to Reuters.

The offshore developers asked the New York Public Service Commission to alter its long term contracts and raise purchase prices to a level that would have let them collect an additional $38 billion from ratepayers.

The commission said that granting the requests would have added as much as 6.7% to residential customers' monthly energy bill in a state that already pays some of the highest rates in the country.

Orstead CEO David Hardy told Reuters that the viability of a 924-megawatt offshore project is “challenged” by the state decision to deny the request.

President Joe Biden has pushed offshore wind development as a key component of his climate agenda.
The Inflation Reduction Act allows offshore wind developers, unlike onshore projects, to claim a minimum 30% investment tax credit, another 10% credit if the project uses equipment that’s made in the U.S., and another 10% if they build their projects in “energy communities.”

Biden’s offshore push is now threatened by rising costs, which have already led to a few projects being scrapped. Earlier this month, Avangrid, a subsidiary of the Spanish utility Iberdrola, announced it was abandoning an 804-megawatt project off the coast of Connecticut.

According to a company statement, the “unprecedented economic headwinds facing the industry including record inflation, supply chain disruptions, and sharp interest rate hikes” have “rendered the Park City Wind project unfinanceable under its existing contracts.”

The company had tried, according to the statement, to work with state and federal officials to find solutions to the project’s financial challenges, but Avangrid decided it was better to terminate its power purchase agreements. The company, according to The Connecticut Examiner, had to pay a $16 million penalty to cancel the contract.

Avangrid also agreed to pay $60 million to Massachusetts, the Examiner reported, to cancel contracts for a 1,200-megawatt wind project, and SouthCoast Wind agreed to pay $60 million to Massachusetts to cancel contracts for a 2,400 megawatt project off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard.

In 2017, Michael Liebrich, CEO of Liebrich Associates and promoter of renewable energy, told BloombergNEF that the offshore wind projects, by using very large wind turbines, were reaching a “tipping point” that allowed their costs to fall below that of fossil fuels. This would allow the industry, Liebrich said, to become competitive without subsidies.

Bloomberg reported in August that the levelized cost of electricity for an offshore wind farm, which doesn’t include all costs of putting a wind farm on the grid, was up almost 50% from 2021 level to $114.20 per megawatt hour.

Investors are responding negatively to the news of the industry’s problems. In the July-September quarter, investors fled renewable energy funds at the fastest rate on record. The total outflow was $1.4 billion.

The S&P Global Clean Energy Index, which is composed of the 100 biggest companies in the energy sector, had a YTD negative 28.78% return.

So, when the ocean wind frauds, even with 40% government subsidy, + couldn't bash consumers over their heads via corrupt government fiat dictates, they all vanished as it makes NEGATIVE business accumen... Ya don't say.  No Shit...

Of course in New England's case it REALLY makes ZERO sense as the ONLY viable way to balance wind is with Natural Gas(hydro you could but that is in a different country) and New York REFUSES to allow Natural gas to be built. 

Cape Hateras(North Carolina) Wind project will probably be the first one built if there ever is one built on the ocean in the USA, as unlike the corrupt trash in New York, actually allow Natural Gas projects to be developed.

Edited October 20, 2023 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

16 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I agree in the US you don't have the infrastructure away from cities/towns at present, but you will eventually.

Some parts of Europe dont either but they are catching up with countries like Germany, France, Scandinavia, UK etc

Costs relative to ICE will fall, servicing is far cheaper, less components to go wrong, fuel is way cheaper, so all of those factors have to be considered in relation to cost.

Range anxiety is an issue I agree, but this is being overcome as more people adopt EV's and prove its no big deal to be able to drive 250 miles then stop for a comfort break and a coffee whilst their vehicle is recharging. Battery rech is improving rapidly and this will mitigate range anxiety in the near future IMHO.

Government and in the US State mandates will mean that EV's WILL be the mainstream form of transportation for the average Joe. Those mandates are already in place for many States and no they wont repeal them Eco before you say they will.

Those "mandates" were not legislated but are the result of administrative fiat, which can very easily be overturned overnight.

Look for that to happen as Americans and British increasingly turn away from EVs and move into fossil fuel vehicles, in line with recent trends in the UK.

[notsonice + 1,102]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Those "mandates" were not legislated but are the result of administrative fiat, which can very easily be overturned overnight.

Look for that to happen as Americans and British increasingly turn away from EVs and move into fossil fuel vehicles, in line with recent trends in the UK.

Look for that to happen as Americans and British increasingly turn away from EVs and move into fossil fuel vehicles????

Only a Luddite would think turning back  technical progress happens.........

 

Reality clocks move forward (not backwards) and EVs gain market share in the US and UK

https://carbontracker.org/one-in-three-uk-car-sales-may-be-fully-electric-by-end-23-as-s-curve-transforms-market/

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by notsonice

[Ron Wagner + 649]

On 10/19/2023 at 2:21 AM, notsonice said:

the death of coal one solar panel at a time

this new plant expansion alone will wipe out multiple coal power plants every year

 

 

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/10/18/qcells-completes-expansion-of-2-5-billion-georgia-solar-manufacturing-facility/

PV Magazine

Qcells completes expansion of $2.5 billion Georgia solar manufacturing facility

The addition marks the first phase of Qcells’ factory expansion and brings module production capacity to more than 5.1 GW.

OCTOBER 18, 2023 ANNE FISCHER

• GIA

Current Qcells factory in Dalton, Georgia.

Image: Hanwha Q Cells

Qcells announced the successful completion of the expansion of its solar module factory in Dalton, Georgia where it added 2 GW of solar capacity, bringing the factory’s output to more than 5.1 GW.

The company said its Dalton factory is the largest manufacturing plant of its kind in the Western Hemisphere and the first solar panel plant expansion since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The expanded factory will manufacture nearly 30,000 solar modules a day, focusing on the new Q.TRON G2 residential solar module and a bifacial module for the commercial and utility markets. The company expects both products to achieve an ecolabel known as EPEAT, which is intended to help customers identify sustainably made products. QCells says the expanded factory will create 510 new jobs.

“Completing this factory marks the third expansion we’ve made in Dalton, and it’s just the beginning of Qcells’ larger mission to build a fully integrated solar supply chain in America,” said Justin Lee, CEO of Qcells. “The Inflation Reduction Act and the efforts of Georgia’s economic development team helped make these ambitious plans possible, and with it thousands of careers in clean energy. As we build new solar technology from Dalton and prepare for the start of Cartersville, it is critical that our local to federal leaders continue to work not only with us, but the larger industry to ensure our collective investments deliver for communities for decades to come.”

In January, QCells announced that it would invest more than $2.5 billion to build a complete solar supply chain in the U.S.. Considered the largest investment in U.S. solar history, it also made QCells, a subsidiary of Hanwha Solutions, the first company to establish a fully-integrated silicon-based solar supply chain in the U.S.  Qcells intends to break ground on a new, state-of-the-art facility in Cartersville, Georgia, where it will manufacture 3.3 GW of solar ingots, wafers, cells and finished modules.

By 2024, between the Dalton and Cartersville facilities, Qcells anticipates its solar production capacity will reach 8.4 GW a year, or enough to power 1.3 million homes annually with clean energy.

Qcells opened its first factory in Georgia in 2019 and hired 750 people to manufacture 1.7 GW of solar. This initial investment was made possible in part by the Section 201 tariffs imposed on solar cells. Last year, Qcells announced a second expansion, which would add 1.4 GW to its manufacturing output and hire 535 more people. This now completed third expansion as well as the new facility that will manufacturing cells, wafers and ingots, follow the passage of the Solar Energy Manufacturing for America Act (SEMA) within the IRA and are made possible with support from Georgia’s economic development team.

Upon completed construction, Qcells estimates that its production in Georgia could avoid more than 12 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year while expanding domestic manufacturing of solar products amidst the push for Made-in-America clean energy solutions.

 

 

 

While all Americans subsidize them and end up paying double for their energy needs. 

[notsonice + 1,102]

1 minute ago, Ron Wagner said:

While all Americans subsidize them and end up paying double for their energy needs. 

end up paying double for their energy needs??? thanks to the assholes that helped double the price of Nat Gas last year.....did the cost of the sun go up???? last I looked solar panels now cost half of what they did 2 years ago.............

Coal prices Oil Prices and Nat gas prices are 100 percent responsible for energy inflation and everything else.....

Please tell us that the price of Oil has gone down in the past few years???? 

 

Reality ...the inflation caused everywhere in the past few years is rooted in the doubling of fossil fuel prices

When we get rid of Oi and Coal we will finally have long term stability in Energy...Until then Saudis and Russia call the shots on the price of oil

 

[notsonice + 1,102]

What is the cheapest source of electricity?

 

 

https://www.wtsenergy.com/solar-cheapest-energy-source-in-history-factor/#:~:text=Solar energy has come a,International Energy Agency (IEA).

 

 

Solar energy

 

Solar energy has come a long way over the past few decades, and today it has become the cheapest source of electricity in history, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).Apr 17, 2023

Edited October 22, 2023 by notsonice

[Ron Wagner + 649]

Prices in America have steadily increased during their entire lifespan.  Shortages have increased over the same period. There are many costs that you do not consider. The cost the consumers pay is what concerns me. 

Consider:

Government subsidies paid for by taxpayers.

The cost of the new electrical transmission infrastructure.

The interest paid by the developers.

The maintenance costs.

The landowner leases. 

The replacement costs. 

California has about the highest rates in the country because of their anti-fossil fuel policies. Only Hawaii has higher prices last I checked. 

If they were cheaper I would support them in many locations. I don't believe everything I am told to. 

[TailingsPond + 505]

50 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

The cost of the new electrical transmission infrastructure.

The interest paid by the developers.

If they were cheaper I would support them in many locations. I don't believe everything I am told to. 

You are so illogical.

How is transmission unique to green electricity?  Fossil fuel electricity still has to be transmitted.  Improved electrical infrastructure is a good thing. Also remember the fossil fuels need to be transported as well.  Pipelines, trains, and road damage from heavy trucks adds up.

Developers accept the risk of the projects, why do you care about them?

You refuse to believe in reality.  Do you still think the election was stolen from trump?  

 

Edited October 22, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,178]

Biden admin OKs major Pacific Northwest gas pipeline in blow to environmentalists, Dems | Fox News

Solar and wind can't keep up with demand. More gas to the rescue!!

[turbguy + 1,436]

1 hour ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Biden admin OKs major Pacific Northwest gas pipeline in blow to environmentalists, Dems | Fox News

Solar and wind can't keep up with demand. More gas to the rescue!!

True, solar and wind contribute a fraction of electric demand.  They won't for decades.

Just like Nuclear.

Just like Coal,

Just like Nat Gas.

Every watt-hour supplied by renewables is one less watt-hour supplied by burning something previously sequestered in the planet. 

At least the permitted project mentioned doesn't seem to require digging a new trench across the planet.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

True, solar and wind contribute a fraction of electric demand.  They won't for decades.

Just like Nuclear.

Just like Coal,

Just like Nat Gas.

Every watt-hour supplied by renewables is one less watt-hour supplied by burning something previously sequestered in the planet. 

At least the permitted project mentioned doesn't seem to require digging a new trench across the planet.

Fossil fuels source 84% of energy needs in 2023, just as they have for decade after decade.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

On 10/19/2023 at 10:49 PM, Ecocharger said:

American consumers have finally figured out that EVs are not the future of private transportation and the walls have now crumbled around the Green transportation fantasy.

This trend of EV joy is now taking a entirely different direction. US youth have opened there eye's, they now grasp the sheer folley of such quest. And their  sense of humor is rather extraordinary I must say...The memes are flying off the press...well kinda..sorta

 

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

This is beginning to look like a pretty accurate forecast.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/24/goldman-sachs-expects-all-time-high-oil-demand-will-boost-prices.html

"The investment bank projects Brent crude to rise from just above $80 per barrel now to $86 per barrel by year end."

Edited October 22, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Poor old EVs have now been exposed as a waste of money in the fallacious attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2.

The distance researched is more than 120,000 miles, which is regarded as a long-term mileage for vehicles.

https://manhattan.institute/article/electric-vehicles-for-everyone-the-impossible-dream?utm_source=wsj&utm_medium=feature

"The differences are such that the dirtiest EVs can have more than double the emissions of the cleanest internal combustion engines."

"Appendix: Details Underlying Figure 6

Anatomy of CO₂ “Guesstimates” and Known Unknowns: Estimated Lifetime EV Emissions Range from 50% Less to 50% More than ICE

To illustrate the uncertainties in estimating EV lifetime CO₂ emissions, we use Volvo’s analysis as a baseline because it is thorough and incorporates many, though not all, variables.[194] Per Volvo: “Choice of methodology has significant impact on the total carbon footprint. . . . [C]are should be taken when comparing results from this report with those from other vehicle manufacturers.” The company showed that, compared with an internal combustion engine’s knowable emissions, the estimated EV emissions range from an idealized 50% lower to a realistic 8% lower.[195]

While theoretical scenarios allow for estimating lower EV emissions, the outcome is not a fact or a measurement. On the other hand, as illustrated below, if the Volvo analysis is adjusted to include some, but not all, known variabilities (discussed in this report), EV lifetime CO₂ emissions can be 15% higher than the baseline ICE car, or if the comparison is with a 30% more fuel-efficient engine, estimated EV lifetime emissions can be more than 50% higher.

Below, we summarize six key known unknowns for four upstream materials features that Volvo estimates cause 18 tons of a total of 25 tons of CO₂ emitted to build the EV, and we add two downstream sets of variables for the baseline of the additional 16 tons emitted from vehicle charging. (The outcome is illustrated in Figure 6 of this report.)

1. Battery size and refueling anxiety: 18 tons CO₂ → 22 tons
   
   EV buyers prefer large batteries, not to address “range anxiety” per se but because that minimizes the frequency of on-road fueling that, even with fast chargers, takes 4x–10x longer than with gasoline. Volvo assumes a 71–78 kWh battery. But 90–100 kWh is common, and, as IEA notes, the trend is up. Bigger batteries mean more materials. Assuming a 25% larger battery than Volvo changes the 18 tons of CO₂ from materials and refining to 22 tons.
    
2. Emissions from energy used producing battery materials: 22 tons → 25 tons
   
   Volvo shows nonaluminum minerals contributing two-thirds of upstream CO₂ based on energy supplied by the “average global grid.” But most “energy materials” are refined in China with a grid that has 50% higher CO₂ per kWh. Assuming half the materials are China-sourced adds three tons to revised factor no. 1 above, thus raising the total to 25 tons.[196]
    
3. Energy/emissions from near-future mining: 25 tons → 34 tons
   
   The unprecedented expansion of mining to meet massive EV minerals demands means that each new ton produced will come from mines with declining ore grades (a long-run geological reality), which increases energy use. Energy per ton of copper mined has doubled in the past decade. Assuming only a 50% increase in CO₂ per ton for (nonaluminum) materials adds another nine tons to the adjustment in no. 2 above, raising the upstream total to 34 tons.[197]
    
4. Aluminum sourcing: 34 tons → 36 tons
   
   The Volvo baseline shows six tons of CO₂ emissions from aluminum production. Specific manufacturers may source aluminum from low-emissions countries, but China is over 55% of the world’s supply.[198] Producing a ton in China emits 20 tons of CO2.[199] The average EV has 0.5 tons of aluminum and rising.[200] Assuming that half the aluminum comes from China adds two tons to the baseline, raising the total battery embodied CO₂ to 36 tons.
    
5. Balance of materials: 36 tons → 43 tons
   
   The Volvo baseline includes 7 tons of CO₂ from fabricating the balance of hardware (battery module assembly, electronics, other materials, etc.). We ignore for this illustration the known variabilities for those factors but note, for example, that the 200 extra pounds of non-battery copper used for EV wiring and motors entails wide emissions variabilities. Thus, many EVs manufactured now and in the near future will arrive at a dealer, before the first mile driven, with upstream CO₂ emissions totaling at least 43 tons.
   
   After the emissions from supplying upstream materials (44 tons) to build the EV, one then adds the variables in downstream emissions, from fueling the EVs battery.
    
6. Drive on U.S. grids, not the EU grid: downstream 16 tons CO₂ → 22 tons
   
   Emissions due to battery charging vary, depending on the electricity used (also the time of day, as discussed elsewhere). Average emissions from all U.S. grids, as well as for many regional grids, are about 40% greater than the EU average.[201] With the contemplated expansion of wind and solar, we assume instead a 35% increase. Thus the 16 tons emitted over 120,000 miles of EU charging (per Volvo analysis) becomes 22 tons in many U.S. states.
    
7. Drive vigorously, or use the heater or air conditioner: 22 tons → 24 tons
   
   Using air conditioning, heat, or vigorous driving increases EV energy use from 10% to 50%. Assume that many users will experience at least a 10% increase in electricity used per mile over the rated efficiency, and the 22 tons in no. 5 above increases to 24 tons of CO₂.
    

The Bottom Line: 43 Tons of Estimated Emissions Rises to 67 Tons

The realistic potential of 43 tons of upstream emissions combined with operating realities of 24 tons of downstream emissions (over a vehicle lifetime) yields a total of 67 tons of EV CO₂. This is 15% more than the 59-ton baseline for a comparable gasoline-fueled SUV. Or, assume instead that a consumer purchases an ICE car with 30% better fuel efficiency; that vehicle’s lifetime CO₂ emissions drop to 40 tons, which is ~27 tons, or 50% less than many possible EV scenarios.