2 ms·

If you look at marginal impact then BEVs have no emissions, because generating capacity is primarily growing in the renewable energy segment. In fact there is

If you look at marginal impact then BEVs have no emissions, because generating capacity is primarily growing in the renewable energy segment. In fact there is an even bigger benefits to BEVs: New BEVs are being made to allow sending current the opposite direction. Hence the BEV fleet can be used as a large battery for storing renewable in times of overproduction and selling it back when it is needed. In other words adopting renewable energy REQUIRES BEVs.

reitzensteinm 7y ago
> If you look at marginal impact then BEVs have no emissions, because generating capacity is primarily growing in the renewable energy segment. This is simply not true. You are tying them together incorrectly. BEVs cause growth in electricity demand, which keeps carbon sources around for longer. Renewable growth displaces carbon sources. The sum may be in the right direction, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't go faster if electricity consumption were lowered. It's also a bit beside the point, as BEVs are more environmentally friendly even when powered by coal plants. My argument is not at all anti BEV or pro ICE. > In other words adopting renewable energy REQUIRES BEVs. Yes, when renewables hit a point where you can't build more for reliability concerns, BEVs performing demand dispatch and even V2G will provide a ton of storage. This is the biggest reason I'm a BEV fan (although PHEVs can also provide much the same role), as dual use of batteries is the only real way to get remotely the storage we're going to need. But my point is that BEVs, while better than an ICE, shouldn't be thought of as equivalently clean to riding or taking public transport. This isn't a radical position, it's math.