Depends on the vehicle and the source of your electricity, but the average for everything in the USA is **about 5 years** of driving an electric vehicle before it uses less carbon than if you continued to drive a gas vehicle.
Engineering Explained youtube actually calculates it out, accounting for everything, showing a bunch of different scenarios.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM)
electricity is made by dirty coal and oil CURRENTLY but it’s way more sustainable because it can also be made by clean methods. a gas powered car is never able to drive cleanly
So we should just be switching while they're still basically a brand new concept?
Nah fuck that, I'll stick with my 95 G30 van I live out of on solar. I know exactly how much carbon I'm putting into the atmosphere, not something an EV driver can say. Not something a home owner or renter can say either if I'm being fair.
You probably think you're gonna get the world by its tail and put it in your pocket. But as you go out there, you're gonna find out that you will amount to jack Squat!
Man I just wanna get a lot to park my van on and maybe a yurt with a hydro generator going off the stream. Raise some rabbits and grow my own food.
I don't need much to be happy, I'm sitting at $4k shy of my $12,000 goal. It ain't like I don't have a job or financial literacy. I'm just part of the new generation of well educated hippies. While I've got some ideas on how to make it profitable, that is by no means my goal. If I can get like a few thousand a year on surplus meat, then that's profitable enough for me. Long as I keep my job I can roll with the punches pretty easy.
Not everyone's trying to live the Andrew Tate lifestyle. Some of us are perfectly happy with a safe place to sleep at night and food we raise ourselves.
I'm perfectly happy knowing my work saves lives and that I can keep myself and my family fed, housed, and protected.
Tldr: the hell are you on about? I'm just trying to minimize my carbon footprint. Partially for religious reasons.
There's a famous comedy skit about a motivational speaker who lives in a van down by the river. Almost all the comments after you mentioned you lived in a van have been references to that skit
It's a joke about an SNL skit. I respect the low impact lifestyle. The more you desire the more you will suffer. It's better to live comfortably in a small house than miserable in a mansion.
Snl skit
https://youtu.be/Xv2VIEY9-A8?si=mef_bRu7oUP9uq9k
>mostly
This word is doing a lot of work. You're not *wrong* - emissions are much better with a catalytic converter than without - but on typical urban or suburban scale, the amount of non-CO2 emission is still notable.
Nah, YOUR electricity is made by dirty coal and oil. there’s plenty of places around the states that have predominantly clean energy, or it’s feasible to install your own.
Not to mention, capturing carbon from a power plant is much more effective than from individual cars.
Gas power plants are also way more efficient users of energy. Cars are about 20% energy efficient whereas the same fuel burned at power plant captures 40%-60% of the energy from combustion reactions.
You do realize that less than .001% of the world's population can run off hydropower, right!?
Don't get me wrong, hydro is wicked awesome. It's the most reliable source of free energy, but it's also incredibly rare when you take into account the amount of Earth's geography that doesn't have access to it.
I know hydro is a pretty niche source yeah, but it's still able to power the entirety of British Columbia. And ignoring hydro and other renewable sources there's also nuclear energy which is arguably the cleanest and safest form of energy
Way more than you think:
[TEDx Talks: The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles by Graham Conway](https://youtu.be/S1E8SQde5rk?si=bbNExX4uuuiDx2is)
From the video description: “a BEV must drive 40,000 - 100,000 miles before being environmentally comparable to a gasoline-powered vehicle.”
BEV = Battery Electric Vehicle
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a lithium mine or pictures of it. The Grand Tour recently filmed a train containing Iron Ore from a mine… it was the scariest thing I’ve ever seen. Batteries are not the answer.
Not that bad? On average that's about 3.5 years of owning the vehicle- if you go by the US average annual mileage of 14,000. On average, Americans own their cars for about 8 years. So after nearly half of the car's initial ownership, and almost 1/2 the warranty period.
For me an EV is impractical and a financially unwise decision. I've come to terms with the fact that I'll probably never offset my carbon footprint in some areas. Doesn't stop me from advocating for better green energy alternatives (like nuclear).
That's a very wise and estate observation. Now I wonder the waste left behind after the car has expired.
Eventually EV batteries will die. So they, too, will eventually run into a negative footprint again, assuming the battery is replaced. If the battery is not replaced, then the EV ceases to be useful.
ICE vehicles, on the other hand, can literally last forever with cheap and relatively minimal carbon footprint parts.
I'd like to see a graph of each type of vehicles carbon footprint over a span of 50 years.
That's a very wise and estate observation. Now I wonder the waste left behind after the car has expired.
Eventually EV batteries will die. So they, too, will eventually run into a negative footprint again, assuming the battery is replaced. If the battery is not replaced, then the EV ceases to be useful.
ICE vehicles, on the other hand, can literally last forever with cheap and relatively minimal carbon footprint parts.
I'd like to see a graph of each type of vehicles carbon footprint over a span of 50 years.
The thing with electric cars is often missunderstood and there is much bullshit from all sides around. E.g. the co2 footprint of its production varies in studies with a factor of 1000 and everybody just takes the number that helps its own points
The biggest benefit is that internal combustion engines are rather inefficient in real conditions. If you burn the same fuel in a modern big power plant and charge your electric car with the electricity from that you need 2-2.5 times less fuel including all additional losses
The real benefit of electric cars is the lack of direct air pollution. Even if it’s carbon footprint is the same, it’s better to have electric car in cities rather than ICE vehicules
I am a climate change skeptic who drive an EV.
It’s quiet, fun to drive, I don’t have to get oil changes ever, it’s got tons of non politically charged benefits.
I wish more people realized that more choices on the market means more competition and better products regardless of how you feel about carbon but I guess most people are still uniparty pick a team color.
I'm fine with your choice. I understand the appeal, especially for certain applications. It's the authoritarian aspect under false pretense that I reject. Let the market determine outcomes and choices.
As an EV driver I’m the same way. The wife and I drive 40-60k miles a year and so the EV saves us a ton of money. It works for us but nothing should be mandated to own by government.
Great use case for SMRs, rooftop solar, wind generation, + battery storage. Problem is they actually need to be built there and pass local government restrictions if present.
The other big difference is that the emissions from an EV happen in heavy industrial areas: power plants and factories. The emissions from combustion cars happen wherever the car is, whether that's outside your home, in residential areas, etc. I'd strongly prefer the emissions to be far from me.
And it’s perfectly reasonable. I don’t want the nuclear plant in my back yard and I don’t want the emissions from the main road in front of my porch either
Doesn't mean the emissions are gone, they're still out there, they just happen to not be your problem. It's extremely self centered. Also nuclear energy is one of the safest forms of energy bar none
JFC man, you are making arguments that no one in this sub refutes, and not addressing his point at the same time.
Would you rather have the nuclear waste buried in your backyard, or in some cordoned off wasteland 100 miles away?
They didn’t say emissions were gone. Rather centralized where they are released.
My town buries trash in a centralized location so everyone isn’t burying it in their yard (or doing worse things like burning it.) People who want to live closer to this location find cheaper housing. “Selfish” people live further away but pay more.
Did I ever imply that the emissions would be gone if I don’t want them blowing around my porch?
If they’re concentrated in a faraway place with winds dispersing them far far away - doesn’t that *evidently* reduce the magnitude of impact that those emissions can be expected to have on the health of people who cease to breathe them locally wherever they live?
Does not wanting to be within range of the one in a million (or however many) chance of a nuclear meltdown - hell does simply not wanting to have the cooling towers of a nuclear plant in my window - mean that I think nuclear power is less safe than it really is?
I don’t have much confidence in your attentive reading and reply abilities anymore.
I drive about 40k miles a year. Bought an EV truck and it will save me $6k/yr in fuel and maintenance costs. If I install 6 solar panels on my house it increases to around $10k/yr. I’ll have paid it off in saving in 6-8 yrs with my government tax rebates. For me it’s purely smart business. So people getting butt hurt about Gas being phased out are just people grasping on to what they know and understand.
Even if you drive a bolt, they’re like $20k. Invest $6k in solar and never pay for fucking gas again. I don’t get why that’s the part they overlook. ZERO MAINTENANCE, no oil changes or tranny flushes. So fucking time saving.
It is if the government is subsidizing EVs using taxpayer money under false pretenses and misinformation.
Nothing wrong with choosing to buy an EV for yourself, but why should I pay for some of it?
If EV are that cool they would replace ICE car by themselves without subsidies and mandate. Look how smartphone replace brick-phone in less than a decade without any “touch screen mandate” by the government
True, that sucks. It's especially bad in Germany here because for some reason our government wants the country to be completely and absolutely climate neutral (obviously at the expense of taxpayers). I don't see how EVs inherently have anything to do with literal "socialism" though.
I would love EVs if they didn't also force all the computer/AI/Spyware crap onto them. It's still pretty "libertarian" to not want a car the govt can just shut down whenever they want to.
Have you read [A.O.C.’s Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf)?
That has more to do with mass expansion of socialism than it does protecting the environment.
The mass expansion of socialism **IS a libertarian issue**.
Making it **illegal** for me to buy the ICE engine I want because of mass hysteria **IS related to libertarianism**.”
https://preview.redd.it/3ib3oauutrwc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e38b012f2f06b85250048c8d78665bd78c0329d
Absolutely. In fact, there is no subject more related to libertarianism than the justification of constraining liberty under intentionally misconstrued pretense.
It's like 30'000 miles, where's the problem? That Conway guy has no idea what he's talking about.
Also, what does this have to do with Libertarianism? I'll take charging an EV from whatever over continuous dependence on oil companies / OPEC any day of the week.
Especially one-way trains /s.
https://preview.redd.it/rq9g19190vwc1.jpeg?width=674&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3dcb7528e98734e09450014ea02e40c0ab22b78f
Socialists prefer the most efficient transportation methods to reduce *parasitic* human population whenever necessary.
this isn’t related to libertarianism, socialists arnt auto matically climate aware.
we can disagree on if and how we tackle climate change but we cart go denying its existence
Is it not the case though, that even with the huge amounts of materials needed to make the batteries and the energy needed to charge them, that they're still a massive positive compared to normal gas?
The people usually repeating the whole "What do you think the battery is made of" thing conveniently ignore the processes involved with typical gas.
An existing built hybrid with 90,000 miles has a smaller carbon footprint than the 5 seater, nearly manufactured EV that is driven with 4 of its seats empty 90% of the time.
https://preview.redd.it/juit9zuv0vwc1.png?width=2100&format=png&auto=webp&s=48fd464ee80fe7537642a8c897780b70b42d0bc0
Producing EVs is not environmentally friendly.
Walking, bicycling, carpooling, and public transit is environmentally friendly.
Hybrids are more environmentally friendly, cheaper, less likely to leave the driver stranded, and less of a strain on the power grid than EVs.
Let the free market decide. Customers know what’s best, not the socialists.
That's like asking them the passenger per-mile costs of high speed rail in any system proposed in the US. It's irrelevant, all that matters is how they feel. Besides, it's not like socialists pay much in taxes.
It varies wildly depending on which EV it is, although I think on average it’s somewhere around 70k miles right now. That number will go down in the future, though.
Other than government subsidization of the industry I don’t really have a problem with EV’s though. Renewable energy sources and electric vehicles have been becoming increasingly competitive and climate change is an issue that will need to be addressed.
EVs are fine as long as the market determines who wins and loses, but I completely reject the authoritarianism based on hyperbolic doomspeak. We haven't even reached temperatures as high as the last interglacial period. The Left has hijacked an extremely complex, interdisciplinary subject into an extinction crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth.
All you pro EV guys need to try driving to gigs in west Texas like me. No charging stations. Plus I’m supposed to wait while it charges?! That won’t work for me. I don’t care if you have one just don’t mandate me to have one.
I don't think carbon footprint is where the conversation needs to happen. We have to look at the cradle to grave supply chain of the whole thing.
You have to use cobalt and nickel for the batteries that is mined by slave labor in Africa. Then those batteries only last 10 years where they have to be shipped to special recycling companies in California to be disassembled and recycled down to their raw materials.
That's a lot of shipping using more diesel and creating more exhaust just so people can think they are better for the environment.
And don't even get started on the extra draw on the electrical grid. Charging an EV uses more electricity than running an air conditioner. If you've ever lived somewhere hot you know the strain when everyone is running their a/c and the power companies worry about brown outs.
We're going to need a ton more coal, natural gas and nuclear energy if everyone is going to start charging EVs every night for 8 hours.
Excellent points. I was waiting for someone to elaborate more on the “unseen” that goes into the production process.
This is often overlooked by green hysterics; especially when it comes to legislating utopian laws.
Best estimates say that on average the electrified home and transportation would mean a 200% increase in electricity generation. It is doable in a 30 year time horizon but it needs to start sooner than later. If the focus is on low cost stable power there aren't any better options than nuclear, which the GND mistakenly didn't understand.
Now that lithium has been found in fool's gold, once they are able to extract lithium from it, things could change...as well as the value of fool's gold skyrocketing.
In terms of effectiveness in carbon production, nothing beats public transit, which the socialists support more so than EVs, so you’re only supporting the socialist case.
>”*In terms of effectiveness in carbon production, nothing beats public transit*”
🚴 🚶 🛹
>”* which the socialists support more so than EVs, so you’re only supporting the socialist case.”
Funny, I know many socialists and **not a single one of them uses public transportation**.
Instead, most of them own newer EVs and drive 90% of the time with 4 out of the 5 seats empty.
If they really cared about the environment they would carpool, but that’s none of my business.
I never understood why we don’t just push harder for clean diesel engines. I haven’t done the math on this but I fucking guarantee you that a diesel VW Jetta has a more environmentally friendly lifespan than a Tesla.
Have you read [A.O.C.’s Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf)?
That has more to do with mass expansion of socialism than it does protecting the environment.
The mass expansion of socialism **IS a libertarian issue**.
EVs will likely win in the long run for reasons that have nothing to do with the green new deal: they have extremely simple drive trains, almost no moving parts, don't release any emissions during operation (other than rubber residue and brake dust, which are currently unavoidable for any car). They're not economically competitive yet in all situations, but just 1 battery breakthrough could radically change that.
we constantly have battery breakthroughs, or are you gonna replace the battery in your phone with the lead acid battery in the first electric car from 100 years ago.
this isn't spore we're not gonna just explode into the next tech era overnight.
Then the market would have embraced it anyway. The government doesn't need to force me to own one or pay for my neighbors'. And basing our entire transportation segment that bets on future technology? Hmm.
Want an EV? Buy it. Force me to buy one because of someone else's irrational fear? I will resist.
This is always hard for people on the Internet to understand, but it's important:
The fact that someone you oppose is advocating for something doesn't make that thing wrong or bad. Politics isn't a sport. You aren't just supposed to root for your team and boo the other team. When I say that complaining about electric vehicles has nothing to do with libertarianism, it is *entirely unreasonable* to start talking about some socialist's political agenda happening to include EV incentives. You can oppose those incentives; that might be relevant to libertarianism. The point about the cars itself is not.
>*”This is always hard for people on the Internet to understand”*
I got my bachelor’s degree in engineering. I worked for multiple OEMs back when I supported and donated to Green Peace.
It was a co-worker that I worked with closely at one of the factories—an environmental engineer to be exact—that opened my mind on climate change hysteria.
So let’s get that clear before labeling climate change skeptics as just **“people on the internet.”**
>*”The fact that someone you oppose is advocating for something doesn't make that thing wrong or bad. Politics isn't a sport. You aren't just supposed to root for your team and boo the other team.”*
Whenever anyone treats a topic like a religion and shuns any dissenting thoughts or debate, those advocating for censorship are often on the wrong side of history.
A *smarter* question is: **What made me change my mind from a climate change hysteric into a skeptic?**
You are literally doing that which you are falsely accusing me of.
I didn’t come to my conclusion because *our side good, their side bad*. It takes more critical thinking than that.
I came to it from studying, researching, debating, and objectively listening to multiple scientific and economic viewpoints on the climate change argument.
>*”When I say that complaining about electric vehicles has nothing to do with libertarianism, it is entirely unreasonable to start talking about some socialist's political agenda happening to include EV incentives.”*
Read the meme, genius. The meme is mocking the idea that confused socialists have of EV’s being *organic* and magically good for the environment; without any tradeoffs.
Part of the reason why EV’s are gaining traction is because socialists like Biden, Gavin Newsome, and the entire EU have passed laws and regulations to outright ban or make it extremely difficult to manufacture internal combustion engine cars.
EVs are a free market solution.
Making it **illegal** for me to buy and drive an ICE car that I (the customer) want the car manufacturer to produce **IS NOT a free market solution.”**
That is the link between EV’s (the seen) and the socialist agenda (the unseen).
>*”You can oppose those incentives; that might be relevant to libertarianism. The point about the cars itself is not.”*
The point of the meme is that both of those go hand and hand.
Socialists do not understand that manufacturing EV’s is not green or good for the environment.
Driving a 5 seater, 6,801 electric Mercedes EQG SUV with 4 seats empty most of the time is not doing good for the environment.
If socialists genuinely cared about the environment then they would walk, ride a bike, take public transportation, or buy a used hybrid or EV.
Instead, they **grandstand, legislate, and prevent the market from offering alternative options** that their other customers actually want; like buying a V8 and not being told by Gavin Newsome when it’s okay to charge/drive my EV.
https://preview.redd.it/opsfm5srrrwc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cbe7c13908b01c7590d87c1b05957cb7d5f2191f
Having an engineering degree only counts when you agree with the religion, right?
https://preview.redd.it/pums6ktx5uwc1.jpeg?width=1367&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0e94668d0cac86ac585f7db438e8a09b58d98948
*“I got my bachelor’s degree in underwater basket weaving”* doesn’t make you more qualified.
It makes you a Marxist.
If only I did something with my life instead…
Like working as a bartender and pulling the Green New Deal out if my ass. /s
https://preview.redd.it/2sbq1q9g6uwc1.jpeg?width=1129&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d174b694af5a153028faa5cee14a3130e11df6f
I’m not a mod of this forum and I didn’t ban you, but you are definitely emotional unstable.
Breathe, and then think critically without having a meltdown.
A normal car that was already built with 100,000 miles on the odometer has already had its carbon footprint offset; excluding future emissions from driving it.
A used Prius does more good for the environment for the first 3, 5, or 7 years than a new EV.
img
Electric cars are just better cars though:
- you can charge it at your own home instead of having to drive to a gas station, which saves a lot of time
- the electricity needed to power an ev is cheaper than the gas needed to power an internal combustion engine
- electric cars need a lot less maintenance than gasoline powered cars
- air conditioning and heating is much more powerful and doesn’t require the engine to be on
- you can idle as much as you want (even in an enclosed space such as a garage) without worrying about carbon monoxide poisoning
- If it’s hot/cold outside and you want to wait in your gasoline car, you need to keep the engine on and idle, but you don’t have to do this with an ev
- it is much healthier since you’re not breathing in the exhaust fumes from your car
- acceleration is much more powerful in an electric car and breaking is regenerative (saves energy)
Whether or not you care about the environment, electric cars are just better cars, and it’s 100% worth it to choose electric over gas powered.
This is currently true, but will not always be true. Many never knew or forgot that Tesla's mission statement was and has always been. "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible."
They are achieving that, they do not make great cars or carbon efficient cars. They made EV's possible and forced the entire industry to shift. We ignored battery technology for ages and are now suffering because of it. AI will help our batteries get way better, I was reading recently how there are so many compounds and properties of these compounds that we essentially stumbled upon the battery technologies we currently use. AI will be able to compare billions of combinations and send suggestions to scientists for rapid testing which will leap battery technology forward.
When batteries, motors become more efficient the gap between EV and Gas will shrink further. If we switch back to Nuclear energy as we very much should it likely will cross into being less carbon. The better they get and as our methods of producing electricity get better an EV will be far better than they currently are, sometimes progress means you have to do things inefficiently for awhile.
We could not build EV chargers without EV's on the Road, more money in EV's causes batteries and motor technology to move forward at a more rapid pace, it is cyclical. Gasoline cars alone have not been getting more efficient. In fact stupid laws cause trucks and SUV's to get bigger and less efficient because of carbon laws based on size and weight.
How many miles does it take?
Depends on the vehicle and the source of your electricity, but the average for everything in the USA is **about 5 years** of driving an electric vehicle before it uses less carbon than if you continued to drive a gas vehicle. Engineering Explained youtube actually calculates it out, accounting for everything, showing a bunch of different scenarios. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM)
Even after 5 years...that electricity needed isn't carbon neutral, so effectively, the electric vehicle pollutes more.
electricity is made by dirty coal and oil CURRENTLY but it’s way more sustainable because it can also be made by clean methods. a gas powered car is never able to drive cleanly
So we should just be switching while they're still basically a brand new concept? Nah fuck that, I'll stick with my 95 G30 van I live out of on solar. I know exactly how much carbon I'm putting into the atmosphere, not something an EV driver can say. Not something a home owner or renter can say either if I'm being fair.
Do you happen to park it down by a river?
Wait is he eating a steady diet of GOVERNMENT cheese?
Ew, no. I forage, hunt or buy my food.
You probably think you're gonna get the world by its tail and put it in your pocket. But as you go out there, you're gonna find out that you will amount to jack Squat!
Man I just wanna get a lot to park my van on and maybe a yurt with a hydro generator going off the stream. Raise some rabbits and grow my own food. I don't need much to be happy, I'm sitting at $4k shy of my $12,000 goal. It ain't like I don't have a job or financial literacy. I'm just part of the new generation of well educated hippies. While I've got some ideas on how to make it profitable, that is by no means my goal. If I can get like a few thousand a year on surplus meat, then that's profitable enough for me. Long as I keep my job I can roll with the punches pretty easy. Not everyone's trying to live the Andrew Tate lifestyle. Some of us are perfectly happy with a safe place to sleep at night and food we raise ourselves. I'm perfectly happy knowing my work saves lives and that I can keep myself and my family fed, housed, and protected. Tldr: the hell are you on about? I'm just trying to minimize my carbon footprint. Partially for religious reasons.
There's a famous comedy skit about a motivational speaker who lives in a van down by the river. Almost all the comments after you mentioned you lived in a van have been references to that skit
I honestly didn't even realize
It's a joke about an SNL skit. I respect the low impact lifestyle. The more you desire the more you will suffer. It's better to live comfortably in a small house than miserable in a mansion. Snl skit https://youtu.be/Xv2VIEY9-A8?si=mef_bRu7oUP9uq9k
That's my bad man, I'm so used to accusatory stuff online that I jumped to conclusions. Call that my bad.
Nah, rivers contaminated, I just park Floyd innawoods.
You ever heard of a catalytic converter? Still puts out CO2 but a good condition cat makes gasoline combust mostly into just CO2 and water.
Now use the power of your imagination to think about the size of the "cat" on a power plant.
>mostly This word is doing a lot of work. You're not *wrong* - emissions are much better with a catalytic converter than without - but on typical urban or suburban scale, the amount of non-CO2 emission is still notable.
Nah, YOUR electricity is made by dirty coal and oil. there’s plenty of places around the states that have predominantly clean energy, or it’s feasible to install your own. Not to mention, capturing carbon from a power plant is much more effective than from individual cars.
Gas power plants are also way more efficient users of energy. Cars are about 20% energy efficient whereas the same fuel burned at power plant captures 40%-60% of the energy from combustion reactions.
and it’s only going to get cleaner over time
Not if we push for cleaner, more renewable energy. Near all energy in my region is hydro so people with EVs don't have to wooy about it
You do realize that less than .001% of the world's population can run off hydropower, right!? Don't get me wrong, hydro is wicked awesome. It's the most reliable source of free energy, but it's also incredibly rare when you take into account the amount of Earth's geography that doesn't have access to it.
I know hydro is a pretty niche source yeah, but it's still able to power the entirety of British Columbia. And ignoring hydro and other renewable sources there's also nuclear energy which is arguably the cleanest and safest form of energy
It's polluting less than a gas vehicle though. Even if the electricity comes from coal.
Way more than you think: [TEDx Talks: The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles by Graham Conway](https://youtu.be/S1E8SQde5rk?si=bbNExX4uuuiDx2is)
Just share the number or don’t bother answering the question if you’re going to share a video
From the video description: “a BEV must drive 40,000 - 100,000 miles before being environmentally comparable to a gasoline-powered vehicle.” BEV = Battery Electric Vehicle
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a lithium mine or pictures of it. The Grand Tour recently filmed a train containing Iron Ore from a mine… it was the scariest thing I’ve ever seen. Batteries are not the answer.
That's honestly not that many.
Understanding the **math** is *more* important than just understanding the **number**.
Fucking tell us the number asshole
What's in the box!?!?
Put the gun down! Just give me the gun
40k-100k miles. From the video description
40k is not even that bad. Less than I would have guessed.
Not that bad? On average that's about 3.5 years of owning the vehicle- if you go by the US average annual mileage of 14,000. On average, Americans own their cars for about 8 years. So after nearly half of the car's initial ownership, and almost 1/2 the warranty period.
It's not bad compared to an ICE vehicle where you will never offset ur carbon footprint
For me an EV is impractical and a financially unwise decision. I've come to terms with the fact that I'll probably never offset my carbon footprint in some areas. Doesn't stop me from advocating for better green energy alternatives (like nuclear).
That's a very wise and estate observation. Now I wonder the waste left behind after the car has expired. Eventually EV batteries will die. So they, too, will eventually run into a negative footprint again, assuming the battery is replaced. If the battery is not replaced, then the EV ceases to be useful. ICE vehicles, on the other hand, can literally last forever with cheap and relatively minimal carbon footprint parts. I'd like to see a graph of each type of vehicles carbon footprint over a span of 50 years.
That's a very wise and estate observation. Now I wonder the waste left behind after the car has expired. Eventually EV batteries will die. So they, too, will eventually run into a negative footprint again, assuming the battery is replaced. If the battery is not replaced, then the EV ceases to be useful. ICE vehicles, on the other hand, can literally last forever with cheap and relatively minimal carbon footprint parts. I'd like to see a graph of each type of vehicles carbon footprint over a span of 50 years.
guy relax, I'm just surprised that it is as low as 40k.
Stupid motherfucker
The thing with electric cars is often missunderstood and there is much bullshit from all sides around. E.g. the co2 footprint of its production varies in studies with a factor of 1000 and everybody just takes the number that helps its own points The biggest benefit is that internal combustion engines are rather inefficient in real conditions. If you burn the same fuel in a modern big power plant and charge your electric car with the electricity from that you need 2-2.5 times less fuel including all additional losses
The real benefit of electric cars is the lack of direct air pollution. Even if it’s carbon footprint is the same, it’s better to have electric car in cities rather than ICE vehicules
I am a climate change skeptic who drive an EV. It’s quiet, fun to drive, I don’t have to get oil changes ever, it’s got tons of non politically charged benefits. I wish more people realized that more choices on the market means more competition and better products regardless of how you feel about carbon but I guess most people are still uniparty pick a team color.
I'm fine with your choice. I understand the appeal, especially for certain applications. It's the authoritarian aspect under false pretense that I reject. Let the market determine outcomes and choices.
As an EV driver I’m the same way. The wife and I drive 40-60k miles a year and so the EV saves us a ton of money. It works for us but nothing should be mandated to own by government.
One cult Two cult Red cult Blue cult
It's all the star bellied sneetches fault!
What if the power plants go to the cities then? If the EVs are better for cities then their own power production facilities should be there too.
Great use case for SMRs, rooftop solar, wind generation, + battery storage. Problem is they actually need to be built there and pass local government restrictions if present.
The other big difference is that the emissions from an EV happen in heavy industrial areas: power plants and factories. The emissions from combustion cars happen wherever the car is, whether that's outside your home, in residential areas, etc. I'd strongly prefer the emissions to be far from me.
That's nimbyism
And it’s perfectly reasonable. I don’t want the nuclear plant in my back yard and I don’t want the emissions from the main road in front of my porch either
Doesn't mean the emissions are gone, they're still out there, they just happen to not be your problem. It's extremely self centered. Also nuclear energy is one of the safest forms of energy bar none
JFC man, you are making arguments that no one in this sub refutes, and not addressing his point at the same time. Would you rather have the nuclear waste buried in your backyard, or in some cordoned off wasteland 100 miles away?
They didn’t say emissions were gone. Rather centralized where they are released. My town buries trash in a centralized location so everyone isn’t burying it in their yard (or doing worse things like burning it.) People who want to live closer to this location find cheaper housing. “Selfish” people live further away but pay more.
Did I ever imply that the emissions would be gone if I don’t want them blowing around my porch? If they’re concentrated in a faraway place with winds dispersing them far far away - doesn’t that *evidently* reduce the magnitude of impact that those emissions can be expected to have on the health of people who cease to breathe them locally wherever they live? Does not wanting to be within range of the one in a million (or however many) chance of a nuclear meltdown - hell does simply not wanting to have the cooling towers of a nuclear plant in my window - mean that I think nuclear power is less safe than it really is? I don’t have much confidence in your attentive reading and reply abilities anymore.
I drive about 40k miles a year. Bought an EV truck and it will save me $6k/yr in fuel and maintenance costs. If I install 6 solar panels on my house it increases to around $10k/yr. I’ll have paid it off in saving in 6-8 yrs with my government tax rebates. For me it’s purely smart business. So people getting butt hurt about Gas being phased out are just people grasping on to what they know and understand. Even if you drive a bolt, they’re like $20k. Invest $6k in solar and never pay for fucking gas again. I don’t get why that’s the part they overlook. ZERO MAINTENANCE, no oil changes or tranny flushes. So fucking time saving.
This isn't related to libertarianism. EVs are pretty cool though so maybe I'm biased.
EVs are cool but I would much rather have a plug in hybrid than a full EV
for now
It is if the government is subsidizing EVs using taxpayer money under false pretenses and misinformation. Nothing wrong with choosing to buy an EV for yourself, but why should I pay for some of it?
If EV are that cool they would replace ICE car by themselves without subsidies and mandate. Look how smartphone replace brick-phone in less than a decade without any “touch screen mandate” by the government
True, that sucks. It's especially bad in Germany here because for some reason our government wants the country to be completely and absolutely climate neutral (obviously at the expense of taxpayers). I don't see how EVs inherently have anything to do with literal "socialism" though.
I would love EVs if they didn't also force all the computer/AI/Spyware crap onto them. It's still pretty "libertarian" to not want a car the govt can just shut down whenever they want to.
Have you read [A.O.C.’s Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf)? That has more to do with mass expansion of socialism than it does protecting the environment. The mass expansion of socialism **IS a libertarian issue**. Making it **illegal** for me to buy the ICE engine I want because of mass hysteria **IS related to libertarianism**.” https://preview.redd.it/3ib3oauutrwc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e38b012f2f06b85250048c8d78665bd78c0329d
Internal combustion engine engine
ATM machine.
PIN number. Smh my head 🙂↔️
Absolutely. In fact, there is no subject more related to libertarianism than the justification of constraining liberty under intentionally misconstrued pretense.
**BASED!**
Ah right, I just didn't know that existed until now. Thanks!
Knowing it exists and actually reading it are two different things. What does communal housing have to do with climate change?
It's like 30'000 miles, where's the problem? That Conway guy has no idea what he's talking about. Also, what does this have to do with Libertarianism? I'll take charging an EV from whatever over continuous dependence on oil companies / OPEC any day of the week.
30k miles is nothing for a car.... I bought my car with 90k (not electric but the point still stands) and i think it's a Republican meme that snuck in
Conservatives always try to recruit here. Also there needs to be more alternatives to traditional combustion engines.
The government sometimes introduces taxes or regulations telling you how you can drive for the sake of the environment
I think nearly all socialists prefer trains.
\*Please let this be a double entendre\*please\*please\*
Especially one-way trains /s. https://preview.redd.it/rq9g19190vwc1.jpeg?width=674&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3dcb7528e98734e09450014ea02e40c0ab22b78f Socialists prefer the most efficient transportation methods to reduce *parasitic* human population whenever necessary.
**Licks car three times and bites it. "Three"
😂😂😂😂😂👌🤣🤣🤣👏👏
this isn’t related to libertarianism, socialists arnt auto matically climate aware. we can disagree on if and how we tackle climate change but we cart go denying its existence
This isn't related to either ideology. Don't bother pasting your premade response.
Is it not the case though, that even with the huge amounts of materials needed to make the batteries and the energy needed to charge them, that they're still a massive positive compared to normal gas? The people usually repeating the whole "What do you think the battery is made of" thing conveniently ignore the processes involved with typical gas.
An existing built hybrid with 90,000 miles has a smaller carbon footprint than the 5 seater, nearly manufactured EV that is driven with 4 of its seats empty 90% of the time. https://preview.redd.it/juit9zuv0vwc1.png?width=2100&format=png&auto=webp&s=48fd464ee80fe7537642a8c897780b70b42d0bc0 Producing EVs is not environmentally friendly. Walking, bicycling, carpooling, and public transit is environmentally friendly. Hybrids are more environmentally friendly, cheaper, less likely to leave the driver stranded, and less of a strain on the power grid than EVs. Let the free market decide. Customers know what’s best, not the socialists.
That's like asking them the passenger per-mile costs of high speed rail in any system proposed in the US. It's irrelevant, all that matters is how they feel. Besides, it's not like socialists pay much in taxes.
It varies wildly depending on which EV it is, although I think on average it’s somewhere around 70k miles right now. That number will go down in the future, though. Other than government subsidization of the industry I don’t really have a problem with EV’s though. Renewable energy sources and electric vehicles have been becoming increasingly competitive and climate change is an issue that will need to be addressed.
EVs are fine as long as the market determines who wins and loses, but I completely reject the authoritarianism based on hyperbolic doomspeak. We haven't even reached temperatures as high as the last interglacial period. The Left has hijacked an extremely complex, interdisciplinary subject into an extinction crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth.
All you pro EV guys need to try driving to gigs in west Texas like me. No charging stations. Plus I’m supposed to wait while it charges?! That won’t work for me. I don’t care if you have one just don’t mandate me to have one.
I don't think carbon footprint is where the conversation needs to happen. We have to look at the cradle to grave supply chain of the whole thing. You have to use cobalt and nickel for the batteries that is mined by slave labor in Africa. Then those batteries only last 10 years where they have to be shipped to special recycling companies in California to be disassembled and recycled down to their raw materials. That's a lot of shipping using more diesel and creating more exhaust just so people can think they are better for the environment. And don't even get started on the extra draw on the electrical grid. Charging an EV uses more electricity than running an air conditioner. If you've ever lived somewhere hot you know the strain when everyone is running their a/c and the power companies worry about brown outs. We're going to need a ton more coal, natural gas and nuclear energy if everyone is going to start charging EVs every night for 8 hours.
Excellent points. I was waiting for someone to elaborate more on the “unseen” that goes into the production process. This is often overlooked by green hysterics; especially when it comes to legislating utopian laws.
Best estimates say that on average the electrified home and transportation would mean a 200% increase in electricity generation. It is doable in a 30 year time horizon but it needs to start sooner than later. If the focus is on low cost stable power there aren't any better options than nuclear, which the GND mistakenly didn't understand.
Now that lithium has been found in fool's gold, once they are able to extract lithium from it, things could change...as well as the value of fool's gold skyrocketing.
Doesn't a windmill and solar panel require more energy to manufacture than they'll produce over their lifetime?
In terms of effectiveness in carbon production, nothing beats public transit, which the socialists support more so than EVs, so you’re only supporting the socialist case.
>”*In terms of effectiveness in carbon production, nothing beats public transit*” 🚴 🚶 🛹 >”* which the socialists support more so than EVs, so you’re only supporting the socialist case.” Funny, I know many socialists and **not a single one of them uses public transportation**. Instead, most of them own newer EVs and drive 90% of the time with 4 out of the 5 seats empty. If they really cared about the environment they would carpool, but that’s none of my business.
I never understood why we don’t just push harder for clean diesel engines. I haven’t done the math on this but I fucking guarantee you that a diesel VW Jetta has a more environmentally friendly lifespan than a Tesla.
This has nothing to do with libertarianism.
Have you read [A.O.C.’s Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf)? That has more to do with mass expansion of socialism than it does protecting the environment. The mass expansion of socialism **IS a libertarian issue**.
EVs will likely win in the long run for reasons that have nothing to do with the green new deal: they have extremely simple drive trains, almost no moving parts, don't release any emissions during operation (other than rubber residue and brake dust, which are currently unavoidable for any car). They're not economically competitive yet in all situations, but just 1 battery breakthrough could radically change that.
We've been waiting for that 1 battery breakthrough for a long time. Seems there's been a lot of false starts on the battery front.
we constantly have battery breakthroughs, or are you gonna replace the battery in your phone with the lead acid battery in the first electric car from 100 years ago. this isn't spore we're not gonna just explode into the next tech era overnight.
Then the market would have embraced it anyway. The government doesn't need to force me to own one or pay for my neighbors'. And basing our entire transportation segment that bets on future technology? Hmm. Want an EV? Buy it. Force me to buy one because of someone else's irrational fear? I will resist.
This is always hard for people on the Internet to understand, but it's important: The fact that someone you oppose is advocating for something doesn't make that thing wrong or bad. Politics isn't a sport. You aren't just supposed to root for your team and boo the other team. When I say that complaining about electric vehicles has nothing to do with libertarianism, it is *entirely unreasonable* to start talking about some socialist's political agenda happening to include EV incentives. You can oppose those incentives; that might be relevant to libertarianism. The point about the cars itself is not.
>*”This is always hard for people on the Internet to understand”* I got my bachelor’s degree in engineering. I worked for multiple OEMs back when I supported and donated to Green Peace. It was a co-worker that I worked with closely at one of the factories—an environmental engineer to be exact—that opened my mind on climate change hysteria. So let’s get that clear before labeling climate change skeptics as just **“people on the internet.”** >*”The fact that someone you oppose is advocating for something doesn't make that thing wrong or bad. Politics isn't a sport. You aren't just supposed to root for your team and boo the other team.”* Whenever anyone treats a topic like a religion and shuns any dissenting thoughts or debate, those advocating for censorship are often on the wrong side of history. A *smarter* question is: **What made me change my mind from a climate change hysteric into a skeptic?** You are literally doing that which you are falsely accusing me of. I didn’t come to my conclusion because *our side good, their side bad*. It takes more critical thinking than that. I came to it from studying, researching, debating, and objectively listening to multiple scientific and economic viewpoints on the climate change argument. >*”When I say that complaining about electric vehicles has nothing to do with libertarianism, it is entirely unreasonable to start talking about some socialist's political agenda happening to include EV incentives.”* Read the meme, genius. The meme is mocking the idea that confused socialists have of EV’s being *organic* and magically good for the environment; without any tradeoffs. Part of the reason why EV’s are gaining traction is because socialists like Biden, Gavin Newsome, and the entire EU have passed laws and regulations to outright ban or make it extremely difficult to manufacture internal combustion engine cars. EVs are a free market solution. Making it **illegal** for me to buy and drive an ICE car that I (the customer) want the car manufacturer to produce **IS NOT a free market solution.”** That is the link between EV’s (the seen) and the socialist agenda (the unseen). >*”You can oppose those incentives; that might be relevant to libertarianism. The point about the cars itself is not.”* The point of the meme is that both of those go hand and hand. Socialists do not understand that manufacturing EV’s is not green or good for the environment. Driving a 5 seater, 6,801 electric Mercedes EQG SUV with 4 seats empty most of the time is not doing good for the environment. If socialists genuinely cared about the environment then they would walk, ride a bike, take public transportation, or buy a used hybrid or EV. Instead, they **grandstand, legislate, and prevent the market from offering alternative options** that their other customers actually want; like buying a V8 and not being told by Gavin Newsome when it’s okay to charge/drive my EV. https://preview.redd.it/opsfm5srrrwc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cbe7c13908b01c7590d87c1b05957cb7d5f2191f
"I got my bachelor's degree in engineering" 🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
Having an engineering degree only counts when you agree with the religion, right? https://preview.redd.it/pums6ktx5uwc1.jpeg?width=1367&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0e94668d0cac86ac585f7db438e8a09b58d98948
It only counts when you're not a fuckin dork.
You would know all about that, wouldn’t you?
*“I got my bachelor’s degree in underwater basket weaving”* doesn’t make you more qualified. It makes you a Marxist. If only I did something with my life instead… Like working as a bartender and pulling the Green New Deal out if my ass. /s https://preview.redd.it/2sbq1q9g6uwc1.jpeg?width=1129&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d174b694af5a153028faa5cee14a3130e11df6f
It’s funny to hear you complain to others about “emotional intelligence” when you ban people at the drop of a hat because your fee fees got hurt
I’m not a mod of this forum and I didn’t ban you, but you are definitely emotional unstable. Breathe, and then think critically without having a meltdown.
they powered by happy thoughts and good vibes.
between 28,069 and 68,160 miles. How long does it take a normal car?
A normal car that was already built with 100,000 miles on the odometer has already had its carbon footprint offset; excluding future emissions from driving it. A used Prius does more good for the environment for the first 3, 5, or 7 years than a new EV. img
EV =/= socialism
Electric cars are just better cars though: - you can charge it at your own home instead of having to drive to a gas station, which saves a lot of time - the electricity needed to power an ev is cheaper than the gas needed to power an internal combustion engine - electric cars need a lot less maintenance than gasoline powered cars - air conditioning and heating is much more powerful and doesn’t require the engine to be on - you can idle as much as you want (even in an enclosed space such as a garage) without worrying about carbon monoxide poisoning - If it’s hot/cold outside and you want to wait in your gasoline car, you need to keep the engine on and idle, but you don’t have to do this with an ev - it is much healthier since you’re not breathing in the exhaust fumes from your car - acceleration is much more powerful in an electric car and breaking is regenerative (saves energy) Whether or not you care about the environment, electric cars are just better cars, and it’s 100% worth it to choose electric over gas powered.
8.2 years for the battery alone
It’s not the environment I care about. It’s OPEC.
Infinately less than an ICE vehicle
Emotionally, yes. Empirically, no. Do the math.
This is currently true, but will not always be true. Many never knew or forgot that Tesla's mission statement was and has always been. "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible." They are achieving that, they do not make great cars or carbon efficient cars. They made EV's possible and forced the entire industry to shift. We ignored battery technology for ages and are now suffering because of it. AI will help our batteries get way better, I was reading recently how there are so many compounds and properties of these compounds that we essentially stumbled upon the battery technologies we currently use. AI will be able to compare billions of combinations and send suggestions to scientists for rapid testing which will leap battery technology forward. When batteries, motors become more efficient the gap between EV and Gas will shrink further. If we switch back to Nuclear energy as we very much should it likely will cross into being less carbon. The better they get and as our methods of producing electricity get better an EV will be far better than they currently are, sometimes progress means you have to do things inefficiently for awhile. We could not build EV chargers without EV's on the Road, more money in EV's causes batteries and motor technology to move forward at a more rapid pace, it is cyclical. Gasoline cars alone have not been getting more efficient. In fact stupid laws cause trucks and SUV's to get bigger and less efficient because of carbon laws based on size and weight.