5 ms·

I don't think so. Building an electric car emits a ton of CO2 as well. The figure that is often used is that building your car generates just as much CO2 that

I don't think so. Building an electric car emits a ton of CO2 as well. The figure that is often used is that building your car generates just as much CO2 that what it will generate during its lifetime of driving. So even if your truck runs 100% on renewable energy (and that's a big if, not to mention that creating this system also generates pollution before becoming green), retrofitting existing vehicles with technologies such as this one should be studied seriously.

CydeWeys 7y ago
That figure is flat-out wrong, though. It's a myth.
- tptacek 7y ago
  Can you link to an analysis?
  - crca 7y ago
    Here’s a comprehensive study from the Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cl...
    - NickNameNick 7y ago
      Is that the one that was massively revised about a month ago, where all the 'worst-case' assumptions for ev production related emissions were dramatically reduced?
    - tptacek 7y ago
      The numbers in this report compare the emissions cost of a new BEV to that of a new ICE. But I don't see anyone seriously arguing that people should buy new ICE's; rather, the claim seems to be that people should keep modern ICEs on the road as long as possible before replacing them (with something better than an ICE). This analysis says it takes 19,000 miles of driving to make the acquisition of a BEV emissions-neutral compared to buying a new ICE; how many miles do you have to drive to make it neutral compared to holding on to your Honda?
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        It's questionable whether keeping your car longer seriously affects how many new cars get made. If you buy a new car and sell it in three years then somebody else can buy it. If you keep it for six years then the person who would have bought it still needs a car for those three years, so now they have to buy a new car in your place. Selling your completely functioning car just puts it in the hands of someone else. What really takes them off the road is wrecks and unjustifiably expensive repairs. So how long your car lasts isn't really a question of how long you personally own it, it's a question of whether you maintain it well so that it stays on the road for the next guy and don't get into a wreck. If you can afford to do it, it would actually help to buy a new electric car, keep it for only a short period of time and then sell it and buy another new one. Because then you're the one buying new cars and you're choosing a BEV, and every one you sell into the used market is someone who then doesn't have to buy a new car that might have been ICE.
        tptacek 7y ago
        That... doesn't sound right to me. Cars are manufactured in numbers to satisfy demand. Buying new cars fuels demand. We'd all like new cars --- we like new everything! --- but this sounds like rationalizing.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Sure, they'll make as many cars as people will buy. And if you were buying new cars and crashing them, that would cause them to have to make more new cars. But if you're buying new cars and then selling them, your demand is offset by you satisfying the demand from the person who bought your old car. If everybody did that then it wouldn't work -- nobody would be buying the used cars. But there are more than enough people who would never do that anyway because they can't afford it, that it's a gain for all the people who can afford it to do it. And, of course, the substitution isn't perfect, so if 95% of new cars were already electric then this might not be worth it. The benefit comes from you choosing a new BEV when someone else might have chosen a new ICE. But when existing new sales are much less than half BEV, making the better choice can easily outweigh the imperfect substitution.
    - hinkley 7y ago
      I'd heard similar complaints to GP about embodied energy, but not for electric vehicles. Only with HEVs and ULEVs, which are far more complicated than either of their competitors. It's no wonder they'd have higher embedded energy footprints. > Under the average U.S. electricity grid mix, we found that producing a midsize, midrange (84 miles per charge) BEV typically adds a little over 1 ton of emissions to the total manufacturing emissions, resulting in 15 percent greater emissions than in manufacturing a similar gasoline vehicle. However, replacing gasoline use with electricity re-duces overall emissions by 51 percent over the life of the car. This has steam coming out of my ears, and I agree with the goal they set for themselves. I haaaAAAAaaate when scientists pull tone-deaf shit like this. It's why I ran away from theory into applied as fast as my legs could carry me. Nobody is gonna drive an 84 mile range vehicle. The market has shouted this from the rooftop and if Concerned Scientist have not heard this, then they're nowhere near as smart as they want everyone to think they are. Use real numbers and spare us your white tower bullshit. A competitive car will have 2.5x times that range. That probably lowers that lifetime number into the high 3X%'s which is not as compelling but also not lying. Lying to prove a point is the worst kind of lying, because when your detractors catch you in it then the unconvinced have confirmation bias against your original premise. Cut that shit out. For everybody's sake. 35% lifetime emissions reduction is not a slam dunk. Many more additional efforts (read: lifestyle changes) will have to go along with that improvement. And that's nearly as hard a pill to swallow as a car that only gets 84 miles per charge brand new.
      - imtringued 7y ago
        I don't understand your comment. You're complaining about lying but the one who is lying is you. 1. The phrase "265-mile-range BEV" appears 9 times in the document. That's not 2.5x times that range. It's more than 3.1 times the range of the small BEV. 2. The document never mentions a 35% emissions reduction. On page 21 (or 31) you can see a chart showing a 51% CO2 reduction for the 84 mile BEV and a 53% reduction for the 265 mile BEV.
        hinkley 7y ago
        Reading further: the increased embodied energy for the Leaf is one tone of carbon. The Tesla is six tons. The fact that the Tesla retains the same emission reduction is because it’s a much larger vehicle. The same sedan would burn much more gas. So what I’d want to know is what’s the footprint of the 2019 extended range Leaf? 2 tons? Five? What’s the lifetime efficiency profile there? (Also I didn’t realize that power in the Midwest was quite that dirty. That’s nuts and it drags the profile down for everyone else. Apparently EVs in the West are a slam dunk, and also on parts of the eastern seaboard. Iowa? Not much of an improvement)
crca 7y ago
That’s pure fiction. Even large batteries (100+ KWh) pay for their manufacturing emissions within a few years.
- jsjw7sbw 7y ago
  A car is a bit more than a large battery.
  - crca 7y ago
    You’re manufacturing a car either way aren’t you?
    - Ericson2314 7y ago
      In fairness, I hear that the lifespan of large working trucks is far longer than vanity consumer cars.
      - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
        To the point where semis typically have more digits on their odometers.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        Does that actually matter though? They'd replace the batteries, not the full truck.
        Ericson2314 7y ago
        Perhaps not, but just something to keep in mind.
    - on_and_off 7y ago
      not at all, we are talking about replacing an existing vehicle or retrofitting it.
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
> Building an electric car emits a ton of CO2 as well And building a regular fuel car doesn't? (Assuming we need to build some kind of car anyway?) "Electric cars are bad for environment because of building them and producing batteries" is plainly just a myth.
- detaro 7y ago
  > (Assuming we need to build some kind of car anyway?) Why do you assume that, given the parent comment explicitly talks about retrofits?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Some retrofits will happen. I would guess, though, that 90% of electric vehicles will be manufactured as electric vehicles, rather than as retrofits. So to focus only on retrofits to make the argument is rather misleading.
- on_and_off 7y ago
  that's quite a nice strawman you have there. I haven't claimed that electric cars are bad for the environment, just that replacing a perfectly working vehicle by another one is not necessarily a win. Cars don't appear out of thin air and that manufacturing process ? it pollutes a ton.
  - manicdee 7y ago
    If the replaced vehicle is used in some way, it’s a net win.
    - on_and_off 7y ago
      It sound like a tough sell to me if the vehicle can be retrofitted to capture 90% of the CO2 it emits. To be fair, once it is captured, I am guessing (e.g. no data) that using it as fuel would release CO2 as well, so we would be somewhere below these 90%. Still, the new vehicle won't appear out of thin air, and the electricity it uses won't either (hopefully it is nuclear or renewable). Either way, I don't see why such a tech gets rejected outright. I hate gas cars as much as everybody and can't wait to see them replaced by good public transit systems, LMV and yes electric cars. In the meantime, we have an enormous pool of gas car in circulation, anything that can help reduce their environmental impact is a win in my book.

CydeWeys 7y ago

That figure is flat-out wrong, though. It's a myth.

tptacek 7y ago
Can you link to an analysis?
- crca 7y ago
  Here’s a comprehensive study from the Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cl...
  - NickNameNick 7y ago
    Is that the one that was massively revised about a month ago, where all the 'worst-case' assumptions for ev production related emissions were dramatically reduced?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    The numbers in this report compare the emissions cost of a new BEV to that of a new ICE. But I don't see anyone seriously arguing that people should buy new ICE's; rather, the claim seems to be that people should keep modern ICEs on the road as long as possible before replacing them (with something better than an ICE). This analysis says it takes 19,000 miles of driving to make the acquisition of a BEV emissions-neutral compared to buying a new ICE; how many miles do you have to drive to make it neutral compared to holding on to your Honda?
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      It's questionable whether keeping your car longer seriously affects how many new cars get made. If you buy a new car and sell it in three years then somebody else can buy it. If you keep it for six years then the person who would have bought it still needs a car for those three years, so now they have to buy a new car in your place. Selling your completely functioning car just puts it in the hands of someone else. What really takes them off the road is wrecks and unjustifiably expensive repairs. So how long your car lasts isn't really a question of how long you personally own it, it's a question of whether you maintain it well so that it stays on the road for the next guy and don't get into a wreck. If you can afford to do it, it would actually help to buy a new electric car, keep it for only a short period of time and then sell it and buy another new one. Because then you're the one buying new cars and you're choosing a BEV, and every one you sell into the used market is someone who then doesn't have to buy a new car that might have been ICE.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        That... doesn't sound right to me. Cars are manufactured in numbers to satisfy demand. Buying new cars fuels demand. We'd all like new cars --- we like new everything! --- but this sounds like rationalizing.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Sure, they'll make as many cars as people will buy. And if you were buying new cars and crashing them, that would cause them to have to make more new cars. But if you're buying new cars and then selling them, your demand is offset by you satisfying the demand from the person who bought your old car. If everybody did that then it wouldn't work -- nobody would be buying the used cars. But there are more than enough people who would never do that anyway because they can't afford it, that it's a gain for all the people who can afford it to do it. And, of course, the substitution isn't perfect, so if 95% of new cars were already electric then this might not be worth it. The benefit comes from you choosing a new BEV when someone else might have chosen a new ICE. But when existing new sales are much less than half BEV, making the better choice can easily outweigh the imperfect substitution.
  - hinkley 7y ago
    I'd heard similar complaints to GP about embodied energy, but not for electric vehicles. Only with HEVs and ULEVs, which are far more complicated than either of their competitors. It's no wonder they'd have higher embedded energy footprints. > Under the average U.S. electricity grid mix, we found that producing a midsize, midrange (84 miles per charge) BEV typically adds a little over 1 ton of emissions to the total manufacturing emissions, resulting in 15 percent greater emissions than in manufacturing a similar gasoline vehicle. However, replacing gasoline use with electricity re-duces overall emissions by 51 percent over the life of the car. This has steam coming out of my ears, and I agree with the goal they set for themselves. I haaaAAAAaaate when scientists pull tone-deaf shit like this. It's why I ran away from theory into applied as fast as my legs could carry me. Nobody is gonna drive an 84 mile range vehicle. The market has shouted this from the rooftop and if Concerned Scientist have not heard this, then they're nowhere near as smart as they want everyone to think they are. Use real numbers and spare us your white tower bullshit. A competitive car will have 2.5x times that range. That probably lowers that lifetime number into the high 3X%'s which is not as compelling but also not lying. Lying to prove a point is the worst kind of lying, because when your detractors catch you in it then the unconvinced have confirmation bias against your original premise. Cut that shit out. For everybody's sake. 35% lifetime emissions reduction is not a slam dunk. Many more additional efforts (read: lifestyle changes) will have to go along with that improvement. And that's nearly as hard a pill to swallow as a car that only gets 84 miles per charge brand new.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      I don't understand your comment. You're complaining about lying but the one who is lying is you. 1. The phrase "265-mile-range BEV" appears 9 times in the document. That's not 2.5x times that range. It's more than 3.1 times the range of the small BEV. 2. The document never mentions a 35% emissions reduction. On page 21 (or 31) you can see a chart showing a 51% CO2 reduction for the 84 mile BEV and a 53% reduction for the 265 mile BEV.
      - hinkley 7y ago
        Reading further: the increased embodied energy for the Leaf is one tone of carbon. The Tesla is six tons. The fact that the Tesla retains the same emission reduction is because it’s a much larger vehicle. The same sedan would burn much more gas. So what I’d want to know is what’s the footprint of the 2019 extended range Leaf? 2 tons? Five? What’s the lifetime efficiency profile there? (Also I didn’t realize that power in the Midwest was quite that dirty. That’s nuts and it drags the profile down for everyone else. Apparently EVs in the West are a slam dunk, and also on parts of the eastern seaboard. Iowa? Not much of an improvement)

crca 7y ago

That’s pure fiction. Even large batteries (100+ KWh) pay for their manufacturing emissions within a few years.

jsjw7sbw 7y ago
A car is a bit more than a large battery.
- crca 7y ago
  You’re manufacturing a car either way aren’t you?
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    In fairness, I hear that the lifespan of large working trucks is far longer than vanity consumer cars.
    - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
      To the point where semis typically have more digits on their odometers.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      Does that actually matter though? They'd replace the batteries, not the full truck.
      - Ericson2314 7y ago
        Perhaps not, but just something to keep in mind.
  - on_and_off 7y ago
    not at all, we are talking about replacing an existing vehicle or retrofitting it.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago

> Building an electric car emits a ton of CO2 as well And building a regular fuel car doesn't? (Assuming we need to build some kind of car anyway?) "Electric cars are bad for environment because of building them and producing batteries" is plainly just a myth.

detaro 7y ago
> (Assuming we need to build some kind of car anyway?) Why do you assume that, given the parent comment explicitly talks about retrofits?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Some retrofits will happen. I would guess, though, that 90% of electric vehicles will be manufactured as electric vehicles, rather than as retrofits. So to focus only on retrofits to make the argument is rather misleading.
on_and_off 7y ago
that's quite a nice strawman you have there. I haven't claimed that electric cars are bad for the environment, just that replacing a perfectly working vehicle by another one is not necessarily a win. Cars don't appear out of thin air and that manufacturing process ? it pollutes a ton.
- manicdee 7y ago
  If the replaced vehicle is used in some way, it’s a net win.
  - on_and_off 7y ago
    It sound like a tough sell to me if the vehicle can be retrofitted to capture 90% of the CO2 it emits. To be fair, once it is captured, I am guessing (e.g. no data) that using it as fuel would release CO2 as well, so we would be somewhere below these 90%. Still, the new vehicle won't appear out of thin air, and the electricity it uses won't either (hopefully it is nuclear or renewable). Either way, I don't see why such a tech gets rejected outright. I hate gas cars as much as everybody and can't wait to see them replaced by good public transit systems, LMV and yes electric cars. In the meantime, we have an enormous pool of gas car in circulation, anything that can help reduce their environmental impact is a win in my book.