Mud pack? Mud pack!

Mogelpacking? Mog's pack!

It is important what comes out of the back: for the climate labels in the mobility turning is heavily debated.

The climate balance of electric cars is saved from profit motifs. A short replica

The mass motorization by means of electro-cars leads into a climate pulp league? The criticism of the colleague jan hegenberg on my article, which argues in this direction, begins with a fundamental misguision, based on much more.

According to hegenberg electric cars "first of all a technology" whose "environmental contract from the respective economic system could be quite independent". Especially this arbitrary dividing line between technology and the social environment in which it arises and unfolds its effect, leads to an ideological dead end. Here, the compulsory compulsion of the capital is hidden, which the E-autobe is only average for the self-purpose wake-up striving.

From this lapping of social contradiction, the tendency to the reelification of thought, where every social context, everything processive and historical at "factual discussions" desires, as well as for positivism, ie for the fact-fetish and to the numbers.

Building on a study swam on the topic, numbers, data and facts are presented by the examinarities of the electromobility, to prove that profitorial mass production of E-cars are contributing to climate protection – whereby the data must be taken from the latest investigations to be credited.

The replica on my contribution refers to a study by the swedish environmental research institute and postulated, I am to access outdated data in my assessment of capitalist e-mobilitat on outdated data, which were umbrelled by the stormy development of technology ("the misleading number of 17 tonnes of CO2 as an indicator of climate damage per e-auto battery"to).

Harald neuber gives this central accusation again in his weekly backlog again: "the autorenteam has therefore given its own study for two years later an update, which has been corrected by emissions around 8.5 tonnes of CO2 – and that too is two years ago."

A dirty secret

How are such numbers updates? A quick look at the conscious of said study offers their dirty secret:

An important reason is that this report involves the production of batteries with nearly 100 percent fossil electricity, which is not yet ugland, but probably will be the case in the future.

It is likely that automatic car batteries are produced with regenerative energy in the future – that’s why the study halved their calculation of CO2 emissions. In the replica on my text, this hopping of the study authors appears as a long-range reality.

More precisely, the wonderful halving of CO2 emissions in battery cell production under point 4.5.2 of the "study" allowed where the exclusion of the battery recycling from the new CO2 balance of 2019 is mentioned (2017 the energy-intensive recycling was taken into consideration).

Again, it is determined that the new minimum values of the CO2 balance are accepting a fossil energy-free battery production than the "most important cause" the alleged CO2 reduction acts. There are also factors like "improved efficiency" in the preparation of.

The study gives a bandwidth ("ratchet") to emissions. In the openness then the average values (GWP: global warming potential) are circulating:

The apparent racy of the total GWP from the 2017 report (150-200 kilograms of CO2-EQ / kwh battery capacity) to 61-106 kilogram CO2-EQ / kwh battery capacity is partly due to the fact that the present report falls below the battery production with almost fossil-free power consumption, what the main reason for the lowest value’s ridge is. The reduction of the high value is mainly influenced by the improved efficiency in cell production. Another reason for the racy is that the emissions from recycling are not included in the new series. In 2017 report, they were about 15 kilograms of CO2-EQ / kwh battery capacity.

Conclusion: the most important factors that contributed to the alleged halving of the CO2 balance of car batteries consist of acceptance of a climatic "clean" battery production, as well as the exclusion of the recycling. The whole reduction between 2017 and 2019 took place by simples withdrawing CO2 sources. The study of 2017 now seems believable.

Is really alright methodically to hope for emission-free battery delivery and sell this as a fact? This at a time in which the kohleland poland develops from prosaic profit and cost limits to one of the most important locations of european battery production, in which some of the conventional battery factories of the continent arise?

Maybe a look at the social context helped to help "study updates" to understand. It is not about climate protection, but billions profits in speculation on a new accumulation regime.

Dafur sometimes scientists are pressed under prere, as the traffic expert winfried wolf in the now third edition of his book "with the electric car in the dead end" with just this study has noted.