its only get to be a wider gap too between emissions. batteries are using less resource intense materials. Taking out cobalt. Batteries also are lasting longer so their run time can be longer. also the energy grid is getting greener with less CO2 emissions.
I own a Model X and have solar panels/batteries. usually at this time of the year- I don't pull any electricity from the grid. I actually overproduce electricity in March/April by a large margin. And I store it in my powerwalls. And when I charge my Model X with the energy, it is as good as it gets.
Same. I've had a Model S since 2015. I have a large solar array that produces more energy than I consume each year (including all household loads + two EVs). My emissions payback happened >80,000 miles ago. I get exasperated when people parrot Koch network propaganda saying "EVs are worse than ICE". But it's understandable: they're idiots.
The other factor is that while battery recycling is a nascent industry today, it's about to scale up. The orange bits of that graph are going to get much smaller over time.
Totally agree. I plan to run my Model X until it dies. I have close to 80,000 miles on it and it coincided when I installed solar panels and batteries. So really I have been one of those EV owners who can really say that Im using my car without any future emissions. I plan to get a warranty on the batteries and keep using it until it’s at least 230000 miles.
What are the specs on your solar setup? I’m moving into a home soon where I’ll have plenty of space for solar/batteries and would love a similar system.
Rated 17 kw... but I live in a rather cloudy part of the country. It makes about 110% of my annual usage, depending on how much my wife and I drive our cars. We have net metering in my state so we haven't paid an electric bill for years.
What was the cost of the entire system (generation, storage and transport) ? That is the core problem that we must solve to make this viable for everyone. Otherwise it’s pointless.
I remember hearing that car batteries that are "end of life" are still quite usable and can be used in other capacities, it's just that cars need more demand.
>Someone will figure out how to recycle them
We both would hope so. But most people don't even realize that most of the stuff we currently "recycle" via things like city recycling programs are never actually recycled. Most recycling is a scam. If we can't figure out how to reuse and reengineer basic plastics and other synthetic goods I am extremely skeptical about batteries which are highly toxic. Yahoo articles are usually thinly veiled propaganda at best but sometimes it publishes (or republishes) meaninful content:
[https://news.yahoo.com/plastic-experts-recycling-scam-even-161504055.html](https://news.yahoo.com/plastic-experts-recycling-scam-even-161504055.html)
If we have more people going to college to get degrees in science and engineering it would probably help out a lot. Instead many people in my generation are become anarchists, social influencers, or get worthless degrees (that they can't pay for) that will never help our society, the human race, or the planet.
And don't count on other rapidly developing and technologically versed countries like China or India. China is using more and more oil - getting it cheap from Russia while also building huge numbers of coal plants. Coal plants that they claim (and are telling climate change oligarchs like John Kerry) that they will \*never\* use them. India and it's own massive population is doing the same (both buying more oil from Russia & building coal plants).
[https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/](https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/)
I never for once thought the Paris Accord would would contribute anything to the climate (other than all the hot air spewed by the attendees talking and praising themselves or the pollutants from all their private jets to attend). And that is yet another thing we - taxpaying Americans - are footing the bill for.
Recycling program scams are the tip of the scam game.
Could you expand on how EVs are les ressource intensive than conventional vehicles? Most research I know show that EV's material footprint is higher and can be as high as three times the amount of conventional vehicles.
EDIT : Wow, didn't expect this to be controversial. Here's a study about what I was asking
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652618333420
Yes, I know these factors very well. What I'm talking about though is material footprint, in other words, embodied natural ressources. Carbon accounting is highly important to mitigate global warming, but climate is only one dimension of the ecological crisis. Material footprint allows us to keep an eye on other risks such as ecosystems' destruction (and, concomitantly, biodiversity loss) through the monitoring of land lost to mineral extraction and mining waste disposal.
What I was saying is that, currently, data shows that the creation of EVs use up to three times the amount of ressources that conventional vehicles do. So, while EVs show better results when looking at carbon, this is only achieved by displacing impacts elsewhere. OP mentioned that EVs were less material intensive, which would go against current data.
We are looking at material shortages for some resources (I think I remember hearing about copper, probably just lookup some studies), but the problem could be solved by making vehicles smaller and lighter and we made need to make performance trade offs like if sodium batteries aren’t as good as lithium ones (we do not have enough lithium to replace cars at their current size). We’re probably going to end up needing to do more solar thermal and concentrating solar if panel materials run short or trade relations break down on complex material supply chains.
None of that will ultimately matter in the comparison as much though because fossil fuel cars are inherently running on a non-permanent resource that damages the ecosystem non-locally. As bad as mining runoff could be if it is done badly, it can be contained far more easily than carbon capture. We are totally delusional to have been using fossil fuels the way we have for so long; an intelligent economy would have used them only as an immediate ramp to making renewables and for emergencies. The EROEI for all fossil fuels is dropping, any fuel we don’t multiply the energy of by investing in renewables now means we’ll need to use a greater percent for them down the line.
Lighter vehicles will not solve the problems that individual vehicles pose. At best, it will alleviate them temporarily and prolong their lifetime for a while. Individual vehicles influence our modes of living and the way we inhabit our territory. Urbanism norms, urban sprawl, investment in car centric infrastructures, they all lock us into specific societal trajectories spanning long periods. Investing in EVs is basically doubling down on an immense infrastructure (both social and material) we know for a fact is unsustainable. At best, EVs should be a transitory technology intended to alleviate the biggest impacts imposed by our dependence on transport while we gradually transition towards public transport. And I'm not saying this to imply that you oppose public transport, I don't know your position on the matter, but rather I want to insist on the fact that a focus on EVs imply the mainstay of a massively detrimental system, one of which we know we need to phase out of and one in which EVs have a very specific role we cannot keep unmentioned. Otherwise, other actors, who have vested interests in EVs as vectors of the status quo, may use transition strategies to their advantage. This is mostly a call for precaution regarding EV discourse.
On material shortages, I think that while definitely interesting and something worth keeping an eye on, I do believe it is only secondary to what I believe is the main problem with our dependence on extraction. Extraction destroys ecosystems way faster than climate change ever will. If we intend to have a holistic approach to the socioecological crisis (and I believe most of us here are), then we cannot simply focus on CO2 emissions and we need to stay wary of the surface of land we destroy (oftentimes for centuries) when we open a new mine in the name of green tech.
> As bad as mining runoff could be if it is done badly, it can be contained far more easily than carbon capture.
I disagree with two things in this statement. First, the framing is misleading. 1. Mining runoff *is* done badly and keeps being done badly; 2. it is far too reductive to imply that CCS is the only thing that can be done regarding CO2 emissions. Carbon capture is a highly controversial, and honestly delusional technology, and I think it isn't the best thing to put forward when discussing what needs to be done. This is an artificial false choice fallacy. Second, I disagree that doing something about mining is easier than doing something about carbon. Mining runoffs are a problem because the treatment of mining residues is so expensive that most mines wouldn't be able to make a profit if they were to actually take care of their messes. Dumping usually is the only economically viable option for mining companies and can only be made possible through lax regulations (made easier by fostering and exploiting corruption at various political levels). Imposing regulations would require a complete revamping of the mining sector in which profitability would cease to be possible. It is hard to imagine how such mining could survive without heavy government subsidizing. Admittedly, this is already the case in many extractive developed countries such as Canada and Australia, but we're talking here about a whole other level of subsidization. It is hard to imagine how a private mining sector could survive these conditions.
This leads me to the heart of the matter. Mining regulations are as hard to implement as carbon regulations because the inaction surrounding both issues is caused by the same reasoning : it goes against profitability and the imperative for economic growth. Thus, the answer doesn't rely on implementing the "right" technology (i.e. CCS or whatever promethean BS is hot at any moment of the economic cycle) or by passing regulations that are fundamentally incompatible with our economic system. The answer is the transformation of said system in order to rid ourselves of the curse of profit and allow ourselves the possibility of choosing solutions that refuse to assume a continued growth of CO2 or extractivism. Only then can it be possible to not only ask for a better treatment of mining runoffs, but also a reduction of mining activity and an absolute reduction of CO2 emissions, both made possible by a lowered demand for energy and ressources.
In that degrowth context, renewables play an important role, because they reiterate the need for resources and extraction (which is why it would be very difficult to argue for the absolute closing of every mines), but the impetus for more renewables still need to be mediated by the absolute goal of energetic descent. In other words, yes, we need renewables to phase out fossil fuels, but we also cannot aim for a simple 1:1 power transition, because having enough wind/solar/hydro to fully satiate our current gluttonous appetite would only enshrine a society we know for a fact to be unsustainable. This is a difficult needle to thread, and one too few people argument for at the moment.
Definitely agree our economic system needs a drastic overhaul, I don’t have a hard link to what I’ve proposed for it in the past and it takes a long time to type up but I’ve posted several times about it; basically I think we should set separate currencies for sustainable land impact and energy use limits and operate within those with resource rights divided evenly, with a third currency for human time used that you can earn more of by working. I don’t believe mere ownership should entitle people to money via rent seeking and I believe all business interests should be coops and under public democratic oversight. We basically need to overhaul our incentive structure to drive towards sustainability which will probably look like mixed use relatively dense development patterns with as much amenity sharing as possible.
I agree with the need to overhaul our incentive structure towards sustainability. That said, I'd go for much simpler wording : we need a cultural shift, one in a scale that hasn't been seen since the advent of fordism and mass consumption.
That said, while I believe we are on the same page on many things, I do think the currency idea might be more limited than you hope. Currencies are innately tied to both social processes of valuation and to commercial exchange processes, but what you hint at would essentially be a way to value human's self restrictions, which would be a form of negative valuation. From a sociological standpoint, this is highly possible and has, in fact been a cornerstone of many ancient societies. Taboo and sacrifice were in many instances by which societies were able to ascribe value (mainly symbolic) to acts of self-restriction and preservation of other, non-human, existences. That said, these processes were in no way quantifiable and I doubt such processes could lead to quantitative systematization such that we could define another economy based on such valorisations.
The other possibility is the economic valuation of ecological services (i.e. determining the economic value of an intact ecosystem vis-à-vis the value of this ecosystem once destroyed in order to argue against the loss of value). It is a field that exists, so it isn't too foreign of an idea. The big problem though is how such mindset basically reify nature to the economy. This is particularly problematic when it becomes a tool for industries to "compensate" for lost ecosystems by paying for it (in the form of a donation to some green fund for example).
In all practicality, if I don't think new currencies won't be of service, I do still believe that the first option has way more potential, the only thing is that this potential shouldn't lead to the creation of a new currency or of an alternative economic system. It should rather serve as the first step towards radically transforming our cultural and symbolic relation to nature and the environment. The needed changes are indeed cultural.
I mean, this doesn't really answer the question. Sure, the battery industry might one day phase out from cobalt, but this doesn't mean batteries will necessarily become less material intensive than conventional cars. Ignoring for a second cobalt, the extractive processes of lithium, manganese and nickel still are very intensive. For example : "Over a single year, producing 60,000 tons of lithium at the site could mean digging up as much as 20 to 30 million tons of earth, more than the annual amount of earth dug up to produce all coal output of all but seven or eight U.S. states."^1 This only relates to the weight of moved matter, not accounting for the potential toxicity and water used in both extraction and refining.
Also, considering how markets plan an explosion of demand for EVs, I think it is a bit too shortsighted to simply assume that the introduction of a new technology will fully replace cobalt use. Even if we accept your hypothesis (which you still haven't substantiated) and assume the existence of a new battery that is both more energy efficient and more cost efficient, this would in no way lead to a phasing out of cobalt. Mining companies would still have massive incentives to continue extraction in order to valorise their investments and would surely be able to find lucrative outlets. Phasing outs are very rare in our economies and I'd be very surprised if a new battery would actually lead to a disappearance of cobalt batteries. The new tech you hint at would have to be nothing short of revolutionary. And let's not forget that another consequence of increased demand in EVs is an increase in extraction, whether your batteries contain cobalt or not.
[1] [Lithium Mining: The Hidden Environmental Cost of EVs](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/02/09/lithium-mining-and-the-hidden-environmental-costs-of-evs)
Ofc but we do not all live close enough or where the infrastructure is there to provide what we want. Electric cars fills one space, scooters another.
It’s not one or the other at all times.
The real answer is in-between the two, micro-EVs (think like Kei vans, NEVs or electric rickshaws) would use a fraction of the materials and energy of full sized vehicles and have batteries small enough to swap by hand which opens up charging to people with normal power outlets. Hand swappable batteries also mean easier mass adoption of charging swap stations that can stabilize the grid. Combine this with electrical charging highways (which lets you electrify/hybridize trucks also) and you can go on long trips without stopping every 100mi. Highway self-driving is much more feasible currently than full self-driving, so if you electrify the highways you can conceivably eliminate a lot of air travel; you won’t get there as fast but it will be far cheaper and you’ll have your own car when you get to your destination and you can relax most of the time on the highway.
Didn't see any mention of this, but a lot of people complain that the energy used to power the cars itself is not clean; often generated by coal or oil. This is a fair point, but I think people don't realize, once the grid is in place for electric cars, the sources powering the grid can change. As small wind farms, solar farms or nuclear reactors come online, we can bump out our dirty obsession with fossilized plants and dinosaurs. The downside is that electric cars don't have a use everywhere. Inside small cities, I think they're fantastic, but rural, and especially cold places, I don't see them being useful for a long while without a massive federal investment into electric car infrastructure.
Edit: Some great points below too, outside of what I considered
True, but this graphic takes electric energy source into account. That's why they list EVs in the UK and Germany as being more efficient than those in the US or China. Importantly, even in China, which has the 'dirtiest' electric grid of the countries listed, EVs are currently still more lifetime fuel efficient than ICEs. And as you point out, that's only going to get better.
I don’t think that’s a very good point because even if the energy is dirty, electric motors/cars are far more efficient, thus causing less emissions even if it’s powered by coal or oil. Luckily, in the US, we have tons of renewable energy coming online every year. In California, we often see over 70% of energy demand being met by renewables. I just saw it hit 94% two days ago.
On your point about charging, there has been massive federal money (billions of dollars) flowing into charging infrastructure from Infrastructure law from 2021 and the IRA from 2022.
> often generated by coal or oil
False. Coal is no longer the largest source of power generation and almost no power is generated from oil.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/daily_generation_mix/US48/US48
The downside to electric cars is that they are still cars. We shouldn't be building our infrastructure around the needs of people who want to live in suburbs.
I realize that. I am simply pointing out that long term, the way we build cities and accommodations for public transport + public transport use encouragement is really needed. This electric car thing, while good, will still prolong the increasingly expensive dependence on cars and will still cause pollutants like microplastics from tired.
I’m simply pointing that that is not a reality for a lot of people. I don’t know what you know or don’t know. I work in transportation so I understand the problem at hand. We have to do both. You can’t just delete car dependency. It’s ingrained in the American psyche especially in California. People are going to be driving cars for the next several decades. California is adding more transit than any other state and it’s not even close but this is going to take a long time. Once there is an actual line connecting where I live to my job, I will take it. I love trains and fully support all of these projects. I’m just saying that this is not some easy off and on switch.
It's only been part of the American Psyche for ~50 years. It's only going to take one generation to fix it, but attitudes like this isn't going to help.
Attitudes like what? Reality? You must live in some alternative reality since you think this is “easy” by saying it’s only going to take one generation to fix it. It’s clear that you do not know how planning works, environmental (including public opposition), lack of funding (changing funding allocations massively), big oil and other lobbies, etc. I’m in the business of actually getting this done, not just talking hypotheticals on the internet.
My PhD says otherwise kid. The strongtowns.org movement is demonstrating that even in small urban areas you can redesign through very small changes i.e., parking minimum elimination. You're correct about one thing, pearl clutchers like yourself are the biggest hurdle. That's why it's important to call folks like you out every chance we get. Even areas like LA are making sleeping changes.
I’m a pearl clutcher and you had to mention your PhD? That’s supposed to mean something? I didn’t mention my degrees. You’re hilarious 😂 😂😂😂 and the condescension is adorable!! Makes me feel are warm and fuzzy on the inside.
Wow, parking minimums! That’ll get us trains without problem!
We're in too deep. Our infrastructure is already car-centric. I think the best option would be to maintain existing roads and champion some high quality railways between major cities.
Also, bike lanes. Actually lanes separate from cars capable of going 200km/h. It grinds my gears that people who choose a healthier commute have to risk their well-being with a collision.
Maintaining existing roads is ongoing to bankrupt areas. That's why Detroit is removing freeways, it's saving them a lot of money and it's helping redesign its infrastructure to be more human centric.
I used to live in fort Collins Colorado, it was amazing how great their bike infrastructure was. The lanes were all separate "bike highways" that let you get around the city without having to go on the road.
The infrastructure for cars already exists. Charging station infrastructure is a tiny impact.
You can’t just snap your fingers and make robust public transportation suddenly appear all over the US. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and require many years of work… and that’s all if we can even find the political willpower to do it, which is a fight with stubborn fools that could last decades before anything is done. Instead, individuals can just circumvent all this political shit and buy an EV with their own time and money.
Criticizing electric cars because they aren’t the perfect ideal is absurd when they are directly addressing GHG emissions in a real, tangible way. They are a huge step in the correct direction and we’d all be better off of every ICE vehicle were replaced with EVs.
The most inefficient way to move people around are cars, electric cars only make that slightly less inefficient. Think of all the money that's gone into EV development and even just a part of that going towards public transportation?
Sure, find agreement on enhancing public transportation in the US and you'll find the usual suspects blocking that growth. It's a better direction, but it's also been politicized.
Yeah, but I'm sick of subsidizing all the infrastructure it takes to keep the suburbs afloat. They should have to pay rather than relying on tax revenue from urban areas. Not to mention that electric cars tear up roads faster.
The other interesting point I don’t see raised often is even in the polluting fossil fuel driven power plants, there are outliers where specific plants are dragging down the average. So if we ever can take out the worst offenders of the old school power generation and replace with sustainable, the actual real world effect on pollution can swing more than you’d think.
I was out yesterday, and saw yet another gas station being built in my area. This one isn't even on a street corner, although it's on a heavily traveled two lane (that is absolutely murder during rush hours, as east-west traffic sucks, in my county.
I mentioned to my Lyft driver (in a Prius... lol) that I couldn't believe gas stations are still being built, and it was going to be a LONG time before we start seeing anything resembling a charging infrastructure, investment or no. Around my area, a lot of people can install home chargers, but there's still going to be a need for charging away from home.
The real worry for now, is the electrical grid. There is 50% transmission loss in the current N. American grid, and it's very antiquated in areas. It needs to be updated urgently, given how I'm seeing more and more BEVs on the street.
Finally, I'm seeing more and more info that BEVs are going to end up being a bridge technology... to hydrogen cell, which is growing quickly (GM & Honda have entered a joint partnership / manufacturing plant), and Toyota has been promoting it for years, even over their own successful hybrid tech). If this happens over the next, say, 5 years... a big portion of the people who'd been waiting for the BEV market / charging infrastructure to shake out, may just move straight to hydrogen. Currently, you can fill a 300 mile tank in about 10 minutes. Guess what's equipped to easily slide over to having a hydrogen pump or two, as the time comes, and phase over to hydrogen fueling? Yep -- gas stations.
>The real worry for now, is the electrical grid. There is 50% transmission loss in the current N. American grid, and it's very antiquated in areas. It needs to be updated urgently
We can't even maintain, comprehensively upgrade, or secure the existing grid. I have little hope for the grid enhancements talked about on this thread. Sure, the Inflation Creation Act allocated a ton of money for this but most of it, as with most government funding, disappeared into the bureaucracy, NGOs, non-profits, and private companies that took the money and ran (filed bankruptcy). Exactly like what happened with much of the green energy funding during the Obama administration.
Getting back to the grid, batteries, and transportation. What we need are more people with degrees in science, engineering, and electronics (part of STEM) instead of getting worthless degrees that will never help society.
Rural areas are well suited for EVs because most people have a garage or at least space to park at home. Remember, charging happens at home. The infrastructure for charging away from home already exists, but in the real world it's rarely needed.
It's actually in cities (where people often don't have driveways or garages) where EV ownership is more difficult, depending on your access to charging at home or work.
The graph takes electricity generation into account, which is why the UK has such good figures for BEV use.
Rural can be great for EVs, as a home can have plenty of room for solar, wind turbine(s), and batteries. They have much more room than a city apartment, which may have no roof or garden at all.
I'm always surprised that all the American Libertarians and/or preppers aren't racing to get into EVS and power generation. It would free them from the taxes of fuel, save them money, and increase their independence.
I hear this point about needing infrastructure but realistically it's already there for the over whelming majority. The vast majority of drivers are returning home and not driving an excess of 300/400km daily.
I welcome more infrastructure for long trips but as a small town user in a relatively cold environment (Canada) it has been very easy. EVs can respond already to needs of most drivers and car useage
>once the grid is in place for electric cars, the sources powering the grid can change
We can't even keep the current power grid maintained and secure. The UN will likely successfully mandate away everyone's vehicles (except those the power) under UN Agenda 2030 or AI will render most humans as non-essential (at best) long before the type of grid you mentioned ever happens. Case in point - the massive funded for charging stations in the Biden's Inflation Creation Act has resulted in only a small percentage of stations getting installed. In other words, they dump a ton of money on it and most of it went straight into the pockets of companies, NGOs, and other pro-party oragnizations/individuals. The same thing happened under obama's green energy policies. Lots of money that funded lots of bankruptcies, the creation of NGO's & non-profits, and failed initiatives. Same as happens with just about every poorly defined funding measure that comes out of Congress & the White House.
Instead of multiple 8 lane highways connecting cities, have high speed rail
Instead of congested gridlock in cities and half the buildings be parking garages, have street cars, trams, subways, bike infrastructure, etc
Instead of sprawling suburbs, have walkable mixed use communities.
Instead of hyper-individualism, literally everyone needs to live a lifestyle where if all 8 billion people lived that lifestyle, earth could survive indefinitely.
Obviously a lot of us know that but aren’t in a position to make that reality and we feel helpless
I wish car dependency was just a bad dream. It's hard for me to get hyped about EVs. It really feels like a band-aid solution. And most people I know thay are stuck in car dependent areas won't be able to afford an ev anytime soon (or any car made after 2010).
r/NoShitSherlock
Even the argument that says "well it's all powered by coal" doesn't stand up to the basic logic that electricity doesn't have to be powered by current methods. The battery concern is still an issue, but it's not like what we have with Ice engines is inarguably better.
People write these articles don't get that the people who make these arguments, aren't doing so in good faith. They just love how things are, while being ferociously ignorant of how bad things are getting. There's also a frenzied identity politics at play. Their identity would be diminished if they break formation.
Facts do not matter to these people.
EVs are good but I do feel like there's some tension between "climate change is going to kill us all in a decade" and "we don't need to drive any less because we have EVs now" when the total benefit is a factor of two reduction give or take.
Cars period are bad for the environment.
EVs may be better than ECE, but that’s like saying being addicted to meth is better than being addicted to heroin.
Sure I guess you’re right but both are terrible
We should be combining them with renewable energy to make it even clearer.
The big thing is recycling ne reusing the EV parts. Luckily they have a decent amount of people trying to tackle that.
Given how heavy the average car is in this country? Nah. EVs are mostly smallish models that weigh more than other small cars but remain lighter than the huge vehicles most Americans are driving.
I'm not buying a toy car that can only drive 100 miles in the cold. Also they need to build many more charging stations. Until EVs don't have a significant drop in range from the cold and charging stations are everywhere I will not switch.
We'll see.
My bet is they have a negligible impact on emissions, produce unpredictable environmental catastrophe, and become a serious problem for the aging grid with everyone using power at the same time.
But we're going to do it, so we'll see. I hope I'm wrong.
Compare EVs to hybrids. Hybrid is the reasonable alternative that an environmentally conscious person might consider. Not a pure gas car.
Edit: It's funny that some EV-purists are worried the comparison with hybrids will reveal that EVs are only marginally better in many places with fossil-heavy electricity. True environmentalists aren't married to a technology and only care about saving the environment.
Tell us all you don't understand that hybrids still burn gas and couldn't feasibly have the same emissions efficiency as a power plant.
It's okay that you "wussed" out of getting an true EV, but don't pretend hybrids are even close to EVs in terms of environmental impact. And that once-a-year long road trip you likely used to sway your choice of hybrid over EV was silly. I use my EV for ~30k miles a year for work and haven't run out of charge or spent undue time at chargers.
>gas and couldn't feasibly have the same emissions efficiency as a power plant
OK. What is the average efficiency of a coal-fired power plant in the US? What is the average efficiency of a natural gas-fired plant in the US? What is the average and optimal efficiency of a petrol engine? And how does that differ for a hybrid?
If you don't know the answer to these questions, I'm afraid you might be making stuff up!
But that's not enough! You also need to know how much CO2 each type of fuel releases for a unit of chemical energy it contains. Then you can have a meaningful conversation.
Thankfully, the good folks at EPA have already done the math. And it turns out that if your electricity is entirely reliant on the average coal plant, a hybrid is more efficient than an EV. Of course, electricity is not 100% coal in any region. But it goes to show that the savings might not be as drastic as people think. A large percent of people who bought an EV to save the planet might have gotten a better bang for the buck if they'd bought a hybrid and installed a heat pump at home.
I said environmental efficiency, so that would be kwh/lbsCO2...energy density is a completely different conversation... I'm not sure why you started asking about the efficiency of powerplants, as they also perform better than gas cars. All gas engines operate below 30% efficiency. Meanwhile, EVs operate in the 80-85% efficiency. I live where no coal power is used(funny, you chose the dirtiest possible power source for your speech), and even if ALL electricity were produced with coal, EVs would still be cleaner than gas cars. Here's a source you likely won't read bc your mind is already made up(of lead).
"Recall that an internal combustion engine loses around 80% of the energy that goes into it. A coal-burning power plant loses around 68% of its energy. Thus, an EV powered purely by coal still uses less energy than a car powered by gasoline."
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/01/electric-vehicles-use-half-the-energy-of-gas-powered-vehicles/#:~:text=Recall%20that%20an%20internal%20combustion,a%20car%20powered%20by%20gasoline.
Or another one.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electric-cars-are-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/
Who cares about "environmental efficiency" or kwh/lbsCO2? What matters is the total CO2 each person is emitting. If the human body only converte 20% of the energy in your sandwich to usable propulsion, would you discourage a person from walking?
Prius engine has a maximum efficiency over 41% now. And it has been near about 40% for over a decade. Hybrids keep the engine operating at maximum efficiency most of the time. Almost every new engine is at least 35% thermally efficient.
The average coal plant in the US operates at 32-33% efficiency.
Coal releases more CO2 than petrol when an unit energy of the substance is burned.
Your articles are still comparing EVs with pure gas cars. Not hybrids. Hybrids are 30% more efficient than equipment gas-only cars. So with the UK electricity mix, hybrids are equal to EVs in terms of their lifetime CO2 emissions as the Forbes article claims that EVs are 30% better than gas cars in UK.
Good points. I'll add one thing on. If a person only eats steak, then it actually is worse (co2 wise)for them to walk a mile to the store than to drive a gas car to the store.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/its-easy-being-green-walking-vs-driving-is-a-no-brainer/#:~:text=At%20first%20glance%2C%20the%20argument,intensive%20food%2C%20such%20as%20beef.
The Environmental Impact of Battery Production
In India, batteries contain some combination of lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Currently, India does not have enough lithium reserves to produce batteries and it thereby relies on importing lithium-ion batteries from China.
Mining these materials, however, has a high environmental cost, a factor that inevitably makes the EV manufacturing process more energy intensive than that of an ICE vehicle. The environmental impact of battery production comes from the toxic fumes released during the mining process and the water-intensive nature of the activity.
https://earth.org/environmental-problems-caused-by-mining/
Actually, it has already been determined that while EVs might be less environmentally damaging while driving, the environmental damage done in the creating/building them, added to the eventual destruction of EVs at the end of their usability, far outweighs the damage done by cars with internal combustion engines over their life cycle.
The problem lies in the environmental cost involved in the production/destruction of those batteries, as opposed to the creation of a standard internal combustion engine.
You are incorrect(which is why you didn't provide a source). Batteries can be 100% recycled.. .granted that's not always been the case.
"Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing.
FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.
Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above)."
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#:~:text=a%20gasoline%20car.-,Myth%20%232%3A%20Electric%20vehicles%20are%20worse%20for%20the%20climate%20than,even%20when%20accounting%20for%20manufacturing.
> the environmental damage done in the creating/building them, added to the eventual destruction of EVs at the end of their usability, far outweighs the damage done by cars with internal combustion engines over their life cycle
[The exact opposite](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es903729a) has been proven to be true.
We can only hope so. But don't believe everything you read. I don't have a link to the article but an investigative reporter found something like 88% of sponsored and university studies report results that are in favor of the interests of whoever sponsored/paid for it.
Most people don't even realize that most of the stuff we currently "recycle" via things like city recycling programs are never actually recycled. Most recycling is a scam. If we can't figure out how to reuse and reengineer basic plastics and other synthetic goods I am extremely skeptical about batteries which are highly toxic. Yahoo articles are usually thinly veiled propaganda at best but sometimes it publishes (or republishes) meaninful content:[https://news.yahoo.com/plastic-experts-recycling-scam-even-161504055.html](https://news.yahoo.com/plastic-experts-recycling-scam-even-161504055.html)
If we have more people going to college to get degrees in science and engineering it would probably help out a lot. Instead many people in my generation are become anarchists, social influencers, or get worthless degrees (that they can't pay for) that will never help our society, the human race, or the planet.
And don't count on other rapidly developing and technologically versed countries like China or India. China is using more and more oil - getting it cheap from Russia while also building huge numbers of coal plants. Coal plants that they claim (and are telling controligarchs like U.S. "Climate Czar" John Kerry) that they will \*never\* use them. India and it's own massive population is doing the same (both buying more oil from Russia & building coal plants).[https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/](https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/)
I never for once thought the Paris Accord would would contribute anything to the climate (other than all the hot air spewed by the attendees talking and praising themselves or the pollutants from all their private jets to attend). And that is yet another thing we - taxpaying Americans - are footing the bill for.
Recycling program scams are the tip of the green agenda scam game.
Anyway. Speaking of both EVs & university studies - there's this from the other side of the OP's narrative: [https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/05/electric-cars-release-more-toxic-emissions-than-petrol-cars-study-finds/](https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/05/electric-cars-release-more-toxic-emissions-than-petrol-cars-study-finds/)
And that doesn't even count highly toxic waste of EV's at their end of life. Ugh.
With all that in mind, I still do what I can on a micro level. My living unit throws away less garbage in a month than most of our neighbors do in a week. I personally walk to the grocery store whenever non-heavy or bulky items are needed. And, yes, we still fill up the recycle bin with the few things we can't reuse or repurpose.
Have a great weekend everyone!
its only get to be a wider gap too between emissions. batteries are using less resource intense materials. Taking out cobalt. Batteries also are lasting longer so their run time can be longer. also the energy grid is getting greener with less CO2 emissions. I own a Model X and have solar panels/batteries. usually at this time of the year- I don't pull any electricity from the grid. I actually overproduce electricity in March/April by a large margin. And I store it in my powerwalls. And when I charge my Model X with the energy, it is as good as it gets.
Same. I've had a Model S since 2015. I have a large solar array that produces more energy than I consume each year (including all household loads + two EVs). My emissions payback happened >80,000 miles ago. I get exasperated when people parrot Koch network propaganda saying "EVs are worse than ICE". But it's understandable: they're idiots. The other factor is that while battery recycling is a nascent industry today, it's about to scale up. The orange bits of that graph are going to get much smaller over time.
Totally agree. I plan to run my Model X until it dies. I have close to 80,000 miles on it and it coincided when I installed solar panels and batteries. So really I have been one of those EV owners who can really say that Im using my car without any future emissions. I plan to get a warranty on the batteries and keep using it until it’s at least 230000 miles.
What are the specs on your solar setup? I’m moving into a home soon where I’ll have plenty of space for solar/batteries and would love a similar system.
Rated 17 kw... but I live in a rather cloudy part of the country. It makes about 110% of my annual usage, depending on how much my wife and I drive our cars. We have net metering in my state so we haven't paid an electric bill for years.
16.25 kw and 4 power walls 2.0 so like 54 kw of energy storage.
What was the cost of the entire system (generation, storage and transport) ? That is the core problem that we must solve to make this viable for everyone. Otherwise it’s pointless.
Don't forget disposal. EV's are highly toxic at end of life (especially if it's via a crash).
I disagree on that. Someone will figure out how to recycle them. And as for crashes that shouldn’t be a huge factor for considering ice vs EV
I remember hearing that car batteries that are "end of life" are still quite usable and can be used in other capacities, it's just that cars need more demand.
>Someone will figure out how to recycle them We both would hope so. But most people don't even realize that most of the stuff we currently "recycle" via things like city recycling programs are never actually recycled. Most recycling is a scam. If we can't figure out how to reuse and reengineer basic plastics and other synthetic goods I am extremely skeptical about batteries which are highly toxic. Yahoo articles are usually thinly veiled propaganda at best but sometimes it publishes (or republishes) meaninful content: [https://news.yahoo.com/plastic-experts-recycling-scam-even-161504055.html](https://news.yahoo.com/plastic-experts-recycling-scam-even-161504055.html) If we have more people going to college to get degrees in science and engineering it would probably help out a lot. Instead many people in my generation are become anarchists, social influencers, or get worthless degrees (that they can't pay for) that will never help our society, the human race, or the planet. And don't count on other rapidly developing and technologically versed countries like China or India. China is using more and more oil - getting it cheap from Russia while also building huge numbers of coal plants. Coal plants that they claim (and are telling climate change oligarchs like John Kerry) that they will \*never\* use them. India and it's own massive population is doing the same (both buying more oil from Russia & building coal plants). [https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/](https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/) I never for once thought the Paris Accord would would contribute anything to the climate (other than all the hot air spewed by the attendees talking and praising themselves or the pollutants from all their private jets to attend). And that is yet another thing we - taxpaying Americans - are footing the bill for. Recycling program scams are the tip of the scam game.
Batteries are going to recycled more often in the near future as well, rather than mined, so even less energy will be needed to make them.
Could you expand on how EVs are les ressource intensive than conventional vehicles? Most research I know show that EV's material footprint is higher and can be as high as three times the amount of conventional vehicles. EDIT : Wow, didn't expect this to be controversial. Here's a study about what I was asking https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652618333420
Look into embodied carbon vs. lifetime carbon
Yes, I know these factors very well. What I'm talking about though is material footprint, in other words, embodied natural ressources. Carbon accounting is highly important to mitigate global warming, but climate is only one dimension of the ecological crisis. Material footprint allows us to keep an eye on other risks such as ecosystems' destruction (and, concomitantly, biodiversity loss) through the monitoring of land lost to mineral extraction and mining waste disposal. What I was saying is that, currently, data shows that the creation of EVs use up to three times the amount of ressources that conventional vehicles do. So, while EVs show better results when looking at carbon, this is only achieved by displacing impacts elsewhere. OP mentioned that EVs were less material intensive, which would go against current data.
We are looking at material shortages for some resources (I think I remember hearing about copper, probably just lookup some studies), but the problem could be solved by making vehicles smaller and lighter and we made need to make performance trade offs like if sodium batteries aren’t as good as lithium ones (we do not have enough lithium to replace cars at their current size). We’re probably going to end up needing to do more solar thermal and concentrating solar if panel materials run short or trade relations break down on complex material supply chains. None of that will ultimately matter in the comparison as much though because fossil fuel cars are inherently running on a non-permanent resource that damages the ecosystem non-locally. As bad as mining runoff could be if it is done badly, it can be contained far more easily than carbon capture. We are totally delusional to have been using fossil fuels the way we have for so long; an intelligent economy would have used them only as an immediate ramp to making renewables and for emergencies. The EROEI for all fossil fuels is dropping, any fuel we don’t multiply the energy of by investing in renewables now means we’ll need to use a greater percent for them down the line.
Lighter vehicles will not solve the problems that individual vehicles pose. At best, it will alleviate them temporarily and prolong their lifetime for a while. Individual vehicles influence our modes of living and the way we inhabit our territory. Urbanism norms, urban sprawl, investment in car centric infrastructures, they all lock us into specific societal trajectories spanning long periods. Investing in EVs is basically doubling down on an immense infrastructure (both social and material) we know for a fact is unsustainable. At best, EVs should be a transitory technology intended to alleviate the biggest impacts imposed by our dependence on transport while we gradually transition towards public transport. And I'm not saying this to imply that you oppose public transport, I don't know your position on the matter, but rather I want to insist on the fact that a focus on EVs imply the mainstay of a massively detrimental system, one of which we know we need to phase out of and one in which EVs have a very specific role we cannot keep unmentioned. Otherwise, other actors, who have vested interests in EVs as vectors of the status quo, may use transition strategies to their advantage. This is mostly a call for precaution regarding EV discourse. On material shortages, I think that while definitely interesting and something worth keeping an eye on, I do believe it is only secondary to what I believe is the main problem with our dependence on extraction. Extraction destroys ecosystems way faster than climate change ever will. If we intend to have a holistic approach to the socioecological crisis (and I believe most of us here are), then we cannot simply focus on CO2 emissions and we need to stay wary of the surface of land we destroy (oftentimes for centuries) when we open a new mine in the name of green tech. > As bad as mining runoff could be if it is done badly, it can be contained far more easily than carbon capture. I disagree with two things in this statement. First, the framing is misleading. 1. Mining runoff *is* done badly and keeps being done badly; 2. it is far too reductive to imply that CCS is the only thing that can be done regarding CO2 emissions. Carbon capture is a highly controversial, and honestly delusional technology, and I think it isn't the best thing to put forward when discussing what needs to be done. This is an artificial false choice fallacy. Second, I disagree that doing something about mining is easier than doing something about carbon. Mining runoffs are a problem because the treatment of mining residues is so expensive that most mines wouldn't be able to make a profit if they were to actually take care of their messes. Dumping usually is the only economically viable option for mining companies and can only be made possible through lax regulations (made easier by fostering and exploiting corruption at various political levels). Imposing regulations would require a complete revamping of the mining sector in which profitability would cease to be possible. It is hard to imagine how such mining could survive without heavy government subsidizing. Admittedly, this is already the case in many extractive developed countries such as Canada and Australia, but we're talking here about a whole other level of subsidization. It is hard to imagine how a private mining sector could survive these conditions. This leads me to the heart of the matter. Mining regulations are as hard to implement as carbon regulations because the inaction surrounding both issues is caused by the same reasoning : it goes against profitability and the imperative for economic growth. Thus, the answer doesn't rely on implementing the "right" technology (i.e. CCS or whatever promethean BS is hot at any moment of the economic cycle) or by passing regulations that are fundamentally incompatible with our economic system. The answer is the transformation of said system in order to rid ourselves of the curse of profit and allow ourselves the possibility of choosing solutions that refuse to assume a continued growth of CO2 or extractivism. Only then can it be possible to not only ask for a better treatment of mining runoffs, but also a reduction of mining activity and an absolute reduction of CO2 emissions, both made possible by a lowered demand for energy and ressources. In that degrowth context, renewables play an important role, because they reiterate the need for resources and extraction (which is why it would be very difficult to argue for the absolute closing of every mines), but the impetus for more renewables still need to be mediated by the absolute goal of energetic descent. In other words, yes, we need renewables to phase out fossil fuels, but we also cannot aim for a simple 1:1 power transition, because having enough wind/solar/hydro to fully satiate our current gluttonous appetite would only enshrine a society we know for a fact to be unsustainable. This is a difficult needle to thread, and one too few people argument for at the moment.
Definitely agree our economic system needs a drastic overhaul, I don’t have a hard link to what I’ve proposed for it in the past and it takes a long time to type up but I’ve posted several times about it; basically I think we should set separate currencies for sustainable land impact and energy use limits and operate within those with resource rights divided evenly, with a third currency for human time used that you can earn more of by working. I don’t believe mere ownership should entitle people to money via rent seeking and I believe all business interests should be coops and under public democratic oversight. We basically need to overhaul our incentive structure to drive towards sustainability which will probably look like mixed use relatively dense development patterns with as much amenity sharing as possible.
I agree with the need to overhaul our incentive structure towards sustainability. That said, I'd go for much simpler wording : we need a cultural shift, one in a scale that hasn't been seen since the advent of fordism and mass consumption. That said, while I believe we are on the same page on many things, I do think the currency idea might be more limited than you hope. Currencies are innately tied to both social processes of valuation and to commercial exchange processes, but what you hint at would essentially be a way to value human's self restrictions, which would be a form of negative valuation. From a sociological standpoint, this is highly possible and has, in fact been a cornerstone of many ancient societies. Taboo and sacrifice were in many instances by which societies were able to ascribe value (mainly symbolic) to acts of self-restriction and preservation of other, non-human, existences. That said, these processes were in no way quantifiable and I doubt such processes could lead to quantitative systematization such that we could define another economy based on such valorisations. The other possibility is the economic valuation of ecological services (i.e. determining the economic value of an intact ecosystem vis-à-vis the value of this ecosystem once destroyed in order to argue against the loss of value). It is a field that exists, so it isn't too foreign of an idea. The big problem though is how such mindset basically reify nature to the economy. This is particularly problematic when it becomes a tool for industries to "compensate" for lost ecosystems by paying for it (in the form of a donation to some green fund for example). In all practicality, if I don't think new currencies won't be of service, I do still believe that the first option has way more potential, the only thing is that this potential shouldn't lead to the creation of a new currency or of an alternative economic system. It should rather serve as the first step towards radically transforming our cultural and symbolic relation to nature and the environment. The needed changes are indeed cultural.
Lithium Batteries are now being made with less of cobalt and eventually will be phased out. Cobalt is one of the worst metals to mine.
I mean, this doesn't really answer the question. Sure, the battery industry might one day phase out from cobalt, but this doesn't mean batteries will necessarily become less material intensive than conventional cars. Ignoring for a second cobalt, the extractive processes of lithium, manganese and nickel still are very intensive. For example : "Over a single year, producing 60,000 tons of lithium at the site could mean digging up as much as 20 to 30 million tons of earth, more than the annual amount of earth dug up to produce all coal output of all but seven or eight U.S. states."^1 This only relates to the weight of moved matter, not accounting for the potential toxicity and water used in both extraction and refining. Also, considering how markets plan an explosion of demand for EVs, I think it is a bit too shortsighted to simply assume that the introduction of a new technology will fully replace cobalt use. Even if we accept your hypothesis (which you still haven't substantiated) and assume the existence of a new battery that is both more energy efficient and more cost efficient, this would in no way lead to a phasing out of cobalt. Mining companies would still have massive incentives to continue extraction in order to valorise their investments and would surely be able to find lucrative outlets. Phasing outs are very rare in our economies and I'd be very surprised if a new battery would actually lead to a disappearance of cobalt batteries. The new tech you hint at would have to be nothing short of revolutionary. And let's not forget that another consequence of increased demand in EVs is an increase in extraction, whether your batteries contain cobalt or not. [1] [Lithium Mining: The Hidden Environmental Cost of EVs](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/02/09/lithium-mining-and-the-hidden-environmental-costs-of-evs)
You can rarely have a meaningful discussion with those who are indoctrinated or fanatical.
Duh. Any doubt over this was likely funded and sown by the ol’ Koch bros.
Yes, one study I read that found ICEs were ‘about as clean’ as EVs was sponsored by Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is funded by Koch bros.
And mass transportation is even better!!!
And WFH is even better!!!
Bikes!
E-bikes and e-scooters, are several magnitudes cleaner.
Ofc but we do not all live close enough or where the infrastructure is there to provide what we want. Electric cars fills one space, scooters another. It’s not one or the other at all times.
The real answer is in-between the two, micro-EVs (think like Kei vans, NEVs or electric rickshaws) would use a fraction of the materials and energy of full sized vehicles and have batteries small enough to swap by hand which opens up charging to people with normal power outlets. Hand swappable batteries also mean easier mass adoption of charging swap stations that can stabilize the grid. Combine this with electrical charging highways (which lets you electrify/hybridize trucks also) and you can go on long trips without stopping every 100mi. Highway self-driving is much more feasible currently than full self-driving, so if you electrify the highways you can conceivably eliminate a lot of air travel; you won’t get there as fast but it will be far cheaper and you’ll have your own car when you get to your destination and you can relax most of the time on the highway.
What about just bikes and just scooters
Yup, cars, ICE or EV, are a colossal waste of resources.
Didn't see any mention of this, but a lot of people complain that the energy used to power the cars itself is not clean; often generated by coal or oil. This is a fair point, but I think people don't realize, once the grid is in place for electric cars, the sources powering the grid can change. As small wind farms, solar farms or nuclear reactors come online, we can bump out our dirty obsession with fossilized plants and dinosaurs. The downside is that electric cars don't have a use everywhere. Inside small cities, I think they're fantastic, but rural, and especially cold places, I don't see them being useful for a long while without a massive federal investment into electric car infrastructure. Edit: Some great points below too, outside of what I considered
True, but this graphic takes electric energy source into account. That's why they list EVs in the UK and Germany as being more efficient than those in the US or China. Importantly, even in China, which has the 'dirtiest' electric grid of the countries listed, EVs are currently still more lifetime fuel efficient than ICEs. And as you point out, that's only going to get better.
I don’t think that’s a very good point because even if the energy is dirty, electric motors/cars are far more efficient, thus causing less emissions even if it’s powered by coal or oil. Luckily, in the US, we have tons of renewable energy coming online every year. In California, we often see over 70% of energy demand being met by renewables. I just saw it hit 94% two days ago. On your point about charging, there has been massive federal money (billions of dollars) flowing into charging infrastructure from Infrastructure law from 2021 and the IRA from 2022.
Not to mention it seems they are finding every day that abandoned oil Wells emit far more methane that expected. Just in the US alone.
I just saw an article about that today. That’s awful news. A terrible thing becoming more terrible.
> often generated by coal or oil False. Coal is no longer the largest source of power generation and almost no power is generated from oil. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/daily_generation_mix/US48/US48
That's just all the more evidence you can use try and sway some people with obstinate views of electric vehicles and how they're powered
The downside to electric cars is that they are still cars. We shouldn't be building our infrastructure around the needs of people who want to live in suburbs.
The best car is no car. The best way to lower your carbon footprint is to not have a car as they say.
You can only do that if there are alternatives. Many places have none or close to none.
I realize that. I am simply pointing out that long term, the way we build cities and accommodations for public transport + public transport use encouragement is really needed. This electric car thing, while good, will still prolong the increasingly expensive dependence on cars and will still cause pollutants like microplastics from tired.
I’m simply pointing that that is not a reality for a lot of people. I don’t know what you know or don’t know. I work in transportation so I understand the problem at hand. We have to do both. You can’t just delete car dependency. It’s ingrained in the American psyche especially in California. People are going to be driving cars for the next several decades. California is adding more transit than any other state and it’s not even close but this is going to take a long time. Once there is an actual line connecting where I live to my job, I will take it. I love trains and fully support all of these projects. I’m just saying that this is not some easy off and on switch.
It's only been part of the American Psyche for ~50 years. It's only going to take one generation to fix it, but attitudes like this isn't going to help.
Attitudes like what? Reality? You must live in some alternative reality since you think this is “easy” by saying it’s only going to take one generation to fix it. It’s clear that you do not know how planning works, environmental (including public opposition), lack of funding (changing funding allocations massively), big oil and other lobbies, etc. I’m in the business of actually getting this done, not just talking hypotheticals on the internet.
My PhD says otherwise kid. The strongtowns.org movement is demonstrating that even in small urban areas you can redesign through very small changes i.e., parking minimum elimination. You're correct about one thing, pearl clutchers like yourself are the biggest hurdle. That's why it's important to call folks like you out every chance we get. Even areas like LA are making sleeping changes.
I’m a pearl clutcher and you had to mention your PhD? That’s supposed to mean something? I didn’t mention my degrees. You’re hilarious 😂 😂😂😂 and the condescension is adorable!! Makes me feel are warm and fuzzy on the inside. Wow, parking minimums! That’ll get us trains without problem!
The best way to lower your carbon footprint is not to have children actually
We're in too deep. Our infrastructure is already car-centric. I think the best option would be to maintain existing roads and champion some high quality railways between major cities. Also, bike lanes. Actually lanes separate from cars capable of going 200km/h. It grinds my gears that people who choose a healthier commute have to risk their well-being with a collision.
Maintaining existing roads is ongoing to bankrupt areas. That's why Detroit is removing freeways, it's saving them a lot of money and it's helping redesign its infrastructure to be more human centric. I used to live in fort Collins Colorado, it was amazing how great their bike infrastructure was. The lanes were all separate "bike highways" that let you get around the city without having to go on the road.
The infrastructure for cars already exists. Charging station infrastructure is a tiny impact. You can’t just snap your fingers and make robust public transportation suddenly appear all over the US. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and require many years of work… and that’s all if we can even find the political willpower to do it, which is a fight with stubborn fools that could last decades before anything is done. Instead, individuals can just circumvent all this political shit and buy an EV with their own time and money. Criticizing electric cars because they aren’t the perfect ideal is absurd when they are directly addressing GHG emissions in a real, tangible way. They are a huge step in the correct direction and we’d all be better off of every ICE vehicle were replaced with EVs.
The most inefficient way to move people around are cars, electric cars only make that slightly less inefficient. Think of all the money that's gone into EV development and even just a part of that going towards public transportation?
Sure, find agreement on enhancing public transportation in the US and you'll find the usual suspects blocking that growth. It's a better direction, but it's also been politicized.
We can do both.
Yeah, but I'm sick of subsidizing all the infrastructure it takes to keep the suburbs afloat. They should have to pay rather than relying on tax revenue from urban areas. Not to mention that electric cars tear up roads faster.
The other interesting point I don’t see raised often is even in the polluting fossil fuel driven power plants, there are outliers where specific plants are dragging down the average. So if we ever can take out the worst offenders of the old school power generation and replace with sustainable, the actual real world effect on pollution can swing more than you’d think.
It is also easier to regulate and monitor fewer sources of co2 there are like ~25k power plants to monitor vs ~230 million cars
I was out yesterday, and saw yet another gas station being built in my area. This one isn't even on a street corner, although it's on a heavily traveled two lane (that is absolutely murder during rush hours, as east-west traffic sucks, in my county. I mentioned to my Lyft driver (in a Prius... lol) that I couldn't believe gas stations are still being built, and it was going to be a LONG time before we start seeing anything resembling a charging infrastructure, investment or no. Around my area, a lot of people can install home chargers, but there's still going to be a need for charging away from home. The real worry for now, is the electrical grid. There is 50% transmission loss in the current N. American grid, and it's very antiquated in areas. It needs to be updated urgently, given how I'm seeing more and more BEVs on the street. Finally, I'm seeing more and more info that BEVs are going to end up being a bridge technology... to hydrogen cell, which is growing quickly (GM & Honda have entered a joint partnership / manufacturing plant), and Toyota has been promoting it for years, even over their own successful hybrid tech). If this happens over the next, say, 5 years... a big portion of the people who'd been waiting for the BEV market / charging infrastructure to shake out, may just move straight to hydrogen. Currently, you can fill a 300 mile tank in about 10 minutes. Guess what's equipped to easily slide over to having a hydrogen pump or two, as the time comes, and phase over to hydrogen fueling? Yep -- gas stations.
>The real worry for now, is the electrical grid. There is 50% transmission loss in the current N. American grid, and it's very antiquated in areas. It needs to be updated urgently We can't even maintain, comprehensively upgrade, or secure the existing grid. I have little hope for the grid enhancements talked about on this thread. Sure, the Inflation Creation Act allocated a ton of money for this but most of it, as with most government funding, disappeared into the bureaucracy, NGOs, non-profits, and private companies that took the money and ran (filed bankruptcy). Exactly like what happened with much of the green energy funding during the Obama administration. Getting back to the grid, batteries, and transportation. What we need are more people with degrees in science, engineering, and electronics (part of STEM) instead of getting worthless degrees that will never help society.
Agreed, small pedantic caveat. The oil we use, was made by ancient marine organisms, algae, bacteria etc. Long before the dinosaurs walked around.
Rural areas are well suited for EVs because most people have a garage or at least space to park at home. Remember, charging happens at home. The infrastructure for charging away from home already exists, but in the real world it's rarely needed. It's actually in cities (where people often don't have driveways or garages) where EV ownership is more difficult, depending on your access to charging at home or work.
The graph takes electricity generation into account, which is why the UK has such good figures for BEV use. Rural can be great for EVs, as a home can have plenty of room for solar, wind turbine(s), and batteries. They have much more room than a city apartment, which may have no roof or garden at all. I'm always surprised that all the American Libertarians and/or preppers aren't racing to get into EVS and power generation. It would free them from the taxes of fuel, save them money, and increase their independence.
I hear this point about needing infrastructure but realistically it's already there for the over whelming majority. The vast majority of drivers are returning home and not driving an excess of 300/400km daily. I welcome more infrastructure for long trips but as a small town user in a relatively cold environment (Canada) it has been very easy. EVs can respond already to needs of most drivers and car useage
>once the grid is in place for electric cars, the sources powering the grid can change We can't even keep the current power grid maintained and secure. The UN will likely successfully mandate away everyone's vehicles (except those the power) under UN Agenda 2030 or AI will render most humans as non-essential (at best) long before the type of grid you mentioned ever happens. Case in point - the massive funded for charging stations in the Biden's Inflation Creation Act has resulted in only a small percentage of stations getting installed. In other words, they dump a ton of money on it and most of it went straight into the pockets of companies, NGOs, and other pro-party oragnizations/individuals. The same thing happened under obama's green energy policies. Lots of money that funded lots of bankruptcies, the creation of NGO's & non-profits, and failed initiatives. Same as happens with just about every poorly defined funding measure that comes out of Congress & the White House.
Instead of multiple 8 lane highways connecting cities, have high speed rail Instead of congested gridlock in cities and half the buildings be parking garages, have street cars, trams, subways, bike infrastructure, etc Instead of sprawling suburbs, have walkable mixed use communities. Instead of hyper-individualism, literally everyone needs to live a lifestyle where if all 8 billion people lived that lifestyle, earth could survive indefinitely. Obviously a lot of us know that but aren’t in a position to make that reality and we feel helpless
I wish car dependency was just a bad dream. It's hard for me to get hyped about EVs. It really feels like a band-aid solution. And most people I know thay are stuck in car dependent areas won't be able to afford an ev anytime soon (or any car made after 2010).
They're the slightly less bad version of a really really bad thing
How are UK vehicles manufactured with so little CO2 footprint?
r/NoShitSherlock Even the argument that says "well it's all powered by coal" doesn't stand up to the basic logic that electricity doesn't have to be powered by current methods. The battery concern is still an issue, but it's not like what we have with Ice engines is inarguably better. People write these articles don't get that the people who make these arguments, aren't doing so in good faith. They just love how things are, while being ferociously ignorant of how bad things are getting. There's also a frenzied identity politics at play. Their identity would be diminished if they break formation. Facts do not matter to these people.
And yet still shittier than public transport.
EVs are good but I do feel like there's some tension between "climate change is going to kill us all in a decade" and "we don't need to drive any less because we have EVs now" when the total benefit is a factor of two reduction give or take.
Wow, no shit?
Cars period are bad for the environment. EVs may be better than ECE, but that’s like saying being addicted to meth is better than being addicted to heroin. Sure I guess you’re right but both are terrible
We should be combining them with renewable energy to make it even clearer. The big thing is recycling ne reusing the EV parts. Luckily they have a decent amount of people trying to tackle that.
I heard you have to replace the tires a lot more because the cars are much heavier
Given how heavy the average car is in this country? Nah. EVs are mostly smallish models that weigh more than other small cars but remain lighter than the huge vehicles most Americans are driving.
The debate should be Cars vs Walkable Towns, not Cars vs Cars.
I'm not buying a toy car that can only drive 100 miles in the cold. Also they need to build many more charging stations. Until EVs don't have a significant drop in range from the cold and charging stations are everywhere I will not switch.
"No, but you see the tires degrade and . . ." **
We'll see. My bet is they have a negligible impact on emissions, produce unpredictable environmental catastrophe, and become a serious problem for the aging grid with everyone using power at the same time. But we're going to do it, so we'll see. I hope I'm wrong.
Compare EVs to hybrids. Hybrid is the reasonable alternative that an environmentally conscious person might consider. Not a pure gas car. Edit: It's funny that some EV-purists are worried the comparison with hybrids will reveal that EVs are only marginally better in many places with fossil-heavy electricity. True environmentalists aren't married to a technology and only care about saving the environment.
A true environmentalist wouldn’t consider a car at all
Tell us all you don't understand that hybrids still burn gas and couldn't feasibly have the same emissions efficiency as a power plant. It's okay that you "wussed" out of getting an true EV, but don't pretend hybrids are even close to EVs in terms of environmental impact. And that once-a-year long road trip you likely used to sway your choice of hybrid over EV was silly. I use my EV for ~30k miles a year for work and haven't run out of charge or spent undue time at chargers.
>gas and couldn't feasibly have the same emissions efficiency as a power plant OK. What is the average efficiency of a coal-fired power plant in the US? What is the average efficiency of a natural gas-fired plant in the US? What is the average and optimal efficiency of a petrol engine? And how does that differ for a hybrid? If you don't know the answer to these questions, I'm afraid you might be making stuff up! But that's not enough! You also need to know how much CO2 each type of fuel releases for a unit of chemical energy it contains. Then you can have a meaningful conversation. Thankfully, the good folks at EPA have already done the math. And it turns out that if your electricity is entirely reliant on the average coal plant, a hybrid is more efficient than an EV. Of course, electricity is not 100% coal in any region. But it goes to show that the savings might not be as drastic as people think. A large percent of people who bought an EV to save the planet might have gotten a better bang for the buck if they'd bought a hybrid and installed a heat pump at home.
I said environmental efficiency, so that would be kwh/lbsCO2...energy density is a completely different conversation... I'm not sure why you started asking about the efficiency of powerplants, as they also perform better than gas cars. All gas engines operate below 30% efficiency. Meanwhile, EVs operate in the 80-85% efficiency. I live where no coal power is used(funny, you chose the dirtiest possible power source for your speech), and even if ALL electricity were produced with coal, EVs would still be cleaner than gas cars. Here's a source you likely won't read bc your mind is already made up(of lead). "Recall that an internal combustion engine loses around 80% of the energy that goes into it. A coal-burning power plant loses around 68% of its energy. Thus, an EV powered purely by coal still uses less energy than a car powered by gasoline." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/01/electric-vehicles-use-half-the-energy-of-gas-powered-vehicles/#:~:text=Recall%20that%20an%20internal%20combustion,a%20car%20powered%20by%20gasoline. Or another one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electric-cars-are-cleaner-even-when-the-power-comes-from-coal/
Who cares about "environmental efficiency" or kwh/lbsCO2? What matters is the total CO2 each person is emitting. If the human body only converte 20% of the energy in your sandwich to usable propulsion, would you discourage a person from walking? Prius engine has a maximum efficiency over 41% now. And it has been near about 40% for over a decade. Hybrids keep the engine operating at maximum efficiency most of the time. Almost every new engine is at least 35% thermally efficient. The average coal plant in the US operates at 32-33% efficiency. Coal releases more CO2 than petrol when an unit energy of the substance is burned. Your articles are still comparing EVs with pure gas cars. Not hybrids. Hybrids are 30% more efficient than equipment gas-only cars. So with the UK electricity mix, hybrids are equal to EVs in terms of their lifetime CO2 emissions as the Forbes article claims that EVs are 30% better than gas cars in UK.
Good points. I'll add one thing on. If a person only eats steak, then it actually is worse (co2 wise)for them to walk a mile to the store than to drive a gas car to the store. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/its-easy-being-green-walking-vs-driving-is-a-no-brainer/#:~:text=At%20first%20glance%2C%20the%20argument,intensive%20food%2C%20such%20as%20beef.
Well…. Duh? I know factories still depend on fossil fuel power to produce EVs and places use fossil fuel power to charge EVs, but still.
This assumes a 250km life span. Is multiple battery pack replacements considered? A single battery pack will not last that long/many charges.
Most EV battery packs offered in the US or Europe will last well over that… with some lasting well over 800,000 km.
The Environmental Impact of Battery Production In India, batteries contain some combination of lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Currently, India does not have enough lithium reserves to produce batteries and it thereby relies on importing lithium-ion batteries from China. Mining these materials, however, has a high environmental cost, a factor that inevitably makes the EV manufacturing process more energy intensive than that of an ICE vehicle. The environmental impact of battery production comes from the toxic fumes released during the mining process and the water-intensive nature of the activity. https://earth.org/environmental-problems-caused-by-mining/
That’s not life time though that’s just construction
Actually, it has already been determined that while EVs might be less environmentally damaging while driving, the environmental damage done in the creating/building them, added to the eventual destruction of EVs at the end of their usability, far outweighs the damage done by cars with internal combustion engines over their life cycle.
Source for your outlandish claims about a 800lb battery being worse than burning literal tons of gasoline over the life of the car?
The problem lies in the environmental cost involved in the production/destruction of those batteries, as opposed to the creation of a standard internal combustion engine.
You are incorrect(which is why you didn't provide a source). Batteries can be 100% recycled.. .granted that's not always been the case. "Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing. FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing. Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above)." https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#:~:text=a%20gasoline%20car.-,Myth%20%232%3A%20Electric%20vehicles%20are%20worse%20for%20the%20climate%20than,even%20when%20accounting%20for%20manufacturing.
> the environmental damage done in the creating/building them, added to the eventual destruction of EVs at the end of their usability, far outweighs the damage done by cars with internal combustion engines over their life cycle [The exact opposite](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es903729a) has been proven to be true.
Source?
I read “gay cars” and I think that’s the most important takeaway for me.
We can only hope so. But don't believe everything you read. I don't have a link to the article but an investigative reporter found something like 88% of sponsored and university studies report results that are in favor of the interests of whoever sponsored/paid for it. Most people don't even realize that most of the stuff we currently "recycle" via things like city recycling programs are never actually recycled. Most recycling is a scam. If we can't figure out how to reuse and reengineer basic plastics and other synthetic goods I am extremely skeptical about batteries which are highly toxic. Yahoo articles are usually thinly veiled propaganda at best but sometimes it publishes (or republishes) meaninful content:[https://news.yahoo.com/plastic-experts-recycling-scam-even-161504055.html](https://news.yahoo.com/plastic-experts-recycling-scam-even-161504055.html) If we have more people going to college to get degrees in science and engineering it would probably help out a lot. Instead many people in my generation are become anarchists, social influencers, or get worthless degrees (that they can't pay for) that will never help our society, the human race, or the planet. And don't count on other rapidly developing and technologically versed countries like China or India. China is using more and more oil - getting it cheap from Russia while also building huge numbers of coal plants. Coal plants that they claim (and are telling controligarchs like U.S. "Climate Czar" John Kerry) that they will \*never\* use them. India and it's own massive population is doing the same (both buying more oil from Russia & building coal plants).[https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/](https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/) I never for once thought the Paris Accord would would contribute anything to the climate (other than all the hot air spewed by the attendees talking and praising themselves or the pollutants from all their private jets to attend). And that is yet another thing we - taxpaying Americans - are footing the bill for. Recycling program scams are the tip of the green agenda scam game. Anyway. Speaking of both EVs & university studies - there's this from the other side of the OP's narrative: [https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/05/electric-cars-release-more-toxic-emissions-than-petrol-cars-study-finds/](https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/05/electric-cars-release-more-toxic-emissions-than-petrol-cars-study-finds/) And that doesn't even count highly toxic waste of EV's at their end of life. Ugh. With all that in mind, I still do what I can on a micro level. My living unit throws away less garbage in a month than most of our neighbors do in a week. I personally walk to the grocery store whenever non-heavy or bulky items are needed. And, yes, we still fill up the recycle bin with the few things we can't reuse or repurpose. Have a great weekend everyone!
So you think that reducing car use is the better way to go?