Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
The HARD TRUTH about EVs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Relaxed Chaos" data-source="post: 16860636" data-attributes="member: 64993"><p>This is a very detailed report on ICE vs BEV.</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46420.pdf[/URL]</p><p></p><p>In summary, BEV's are slightly more efficient and also likely more toxic. </p><p></p><p><strong>In general, GHG emissions associated with the raw materials and production stage of BEVs are between 1.3 and 2.0 times higher than for ICEVs. This can be offset by lower in-use stage emissions, depending on the electricity generation source</strong> <strong>and the lifetime vehicle miles traveled. BEVs offer greater local air quality benefits than ICEVs, due to the absence of tailpipe exhaust emissions. Both BEVs and ICEVs are responsible for upstream air pollutants emissions during the production and in-use stages.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Studies generally suggest that BEVs could be responsible for greater human toxicity and ecosystems effects than their ICEV equivalents, based on current mining and recycling technologies. These potentially different effects from BEVs result from the additional mining and processing of metals to produce batteries and from the mining and combustion of coal to produce </strong></p><p><strong>electricity. Increased freshwater ecotoxicity effects from BEVs may likewise result from the additional mining requirements. Other impacts are more complicated to compare. </strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Relaxed Chaos, post: 16860636, member: 64993"] This is a very detailed report on ICE vs BEV. [URL unfurl="true"]https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R46420.pdf[/URL] In summary, BEV's are slightly more efficient and also likely more toxic. [B]In general, GHG emissions associated with the raw materials and production stage of BEVs are between 1.3 and 2.0 times higher than for ICEVs. This can be offset by lower in-use stage emissions, depending on the electricity generation source[/B] [B]and the lifetime vehicle miles traveled. BEVs offer greater local air quality benefits than ICEVs, due to the absence of tailpipe exhaust emissions. Both BEVs and ICEVs are responsible for upstream air pollutants emissions during the production and in-use stages. Studies generally suggest that BEVs could be responsible for greater human toxicity and ecosystems effects than their ICEV equivalents, based on current mining and recycling technologies. These potentially different effects from BEVs result from the additional mining and processing of metals to produce batteries and from the mining and combustion of coal to produce electricity. Increased freshwater ecotoxicity effects from BEVs may likewise result from the additional mining requirements. Other impacts are more complicated to compare. [/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
The HARD TRUTH about EVs
Top