5 ms·

> only if you can manufacture the car in a way that the reduced emissions over its lifetime are not offset by additional emissions during manufacturing and deco

> only if you can manufacture the car in a way that the reduced emissions over its lifetime are not offset by additional emissions during manufacturing and decommissioning. This is a really bad faith argument I hear, a real eye roller. It never advances the conversation, it is a proverbial “just asking questions.” Why bad faith? You, your friends and the things you read never bring this up about electric trains and busses. If a Tesla doesn’t amortize by some napkin analysis, neither would an electric bus by that same exact analysis - just because someone somewhere doesn’t like Tesla, doesn’t mean there’s any truth to “electric car emissions don’t amortize.” Just because some article online somewhere says electric busses do and Teslas don’t also doesn’t make it true. The worst thing the environmental activist community could do is lose Tesla as an ally. Nobody is going to give a fuck about some cobalt mines somewhere, as horrible as they are, or whatever more substantive grievance it is, if we have to endure another 20 years of excess emissions because environmentally conscious people second guess the purchasing of electric cars.

ryder9 5y ago
just say you're fine with child slavery & deaths, don't sugar coat it https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/03/15/cfp-siddharth-kara-spc-intl.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/03/15/cfp-siddharth-kara-... https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/16/apple-and-google-named-in-us-lawsuit-over-congolese-child-cobalt-mining-deaths https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/16/a... https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-9ce4-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-9ce4-11e9-9c06-a4640c9fe... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/06/drc-cobalt-child-labour/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/06/drc-coba...
danbruc 5y ago
It is a simple fact that using electric cars is no good if you get the electricity from fossil fuels. And I remember reading that at least some electric cars are not reducing greenhouse emissions even if they are charged with non-fossil electricity. If one does not solve those two issues then we are better of continuing to driving with combustion engines. Also I said not a single word about Tesla.
- Faaak 5y ago
  No it's not true. E2e emissions are still lower
- dataflow 5y ago
  > It is a simple fact that using electric cars is no good if you get the electricity from fossil fuels. Source? Where did you pull that from? An entire power plant dedicated to maximizing power generation efficiency is somehow equally efficient to a car engine that fits in like a cubic meter? > And I remember reading that at least some electric cars are not reducing greenhouse emissions even if they are charged with non-fossil electricity. I'd suggest trying to find a link for this too, because people need to be aware of it if it's true.
incrudible 5y ago
Just because it might be "in bad faith" doesn't make the argument wrong. A lot of subsidies are being pumped into EVs on the assumption that they're a net benefit to CO2 goals. If they are not, or if it is only true for specific models, then that needs to be accounted for. > If a Tesla doesn’t amortize by some napkin analysis, neither would an electric bus That's not a given, these are two quite different vehicles with quite different usage scenarios. A Tesla might not actually get a lot of mileage in its lifetime, whereas a commercial bus would get as much mileage as possible. Having said that, even if it were true that electric buses also are a net negative on emissions, then the obvious answer would be that we shouldn't subsidize those either.
- p1necone 5y ago
  The argument is also just plain wrong though. Even if 100% of the power generation is from coal, it's still more efficient compared to individual petrol engines in cars. Large stationary constant (ish) speed fossil fuel generators will be more efficient than a bunch of little non constant speed petrol engines in cars.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    That's not the argument though. Batteries require a lot of resources to produce, to the point where production of an EV can create more emissions than a comparable gasoline vehicle. If such an EV then fails to offset these emissions during its lifetime, it was a net negative.
    - njarboe 5y ago
      Tesla's goal is to build cars that last for a million miles. Electric motor technology is already there and they are also working on making the other parts of the car last a similar length of time. Also notice how the new model S looks very similar to the old model S. Having old cars look like the newer version is also part of getting people to use cars for a million miles/
      - 5y ago
deertick1 5y ago
I actually think your argument is pretty bad faith. You are, on nothing but assumption alone, assuming you know this persons intentions, you know their opinions, where they got them, and other people just like them with their opinions. Then you go on to ignore their actual argument completely, and say, essentially "who gives a fuck if we have another 20 years excess emissions if people end up in cars" Well, presumably the OP does, because he was making a point as to why it is questionable that EVs are good for the environment. You basically insulted his character and his argument by ad hominem, then said "who even gives a fuck? I just want everyone to own a Tesla!"

ryder9 5y ago

just say you're fine with child slavery & deaths, don't sugar coat it https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/03/15/cfp-siddharth-kara-spc-intl.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2021/03/15/cfp-siddharth-kara-... https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/16/apple-and-google-named-in-us-lawsuit-over-congolese-child-cobalt-mining-deaths https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/16/a... https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-9ce4-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-9ce4-11e9-9c06-a4640c9fe... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/06/drc-cobalt-child-labour/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/06/drc-coba...

danbruc 5y ago

It is a simple fact that using electric cars is no good if you get the electricity from fossil fuels. And I remember reading that at least some electric cars are not reducing greenhouse emissions even if they are charged with non-fossil electricity. If one does not solve those two issues then we are better of continuing to driving with combustion engines. Also I said not a single word about Tesla.

Faaak 5y ago
No it's not true. E2e emissions are still lower
dataflow 5y ago
> It is a simple fact that using electric cars is no good if you get the electricity from fossil fuels. Source? Where did you pull that from? An entire power plant dedicated to maximizing power generation efficiency is somehow equally efficient to a car engine that fits in like a cubic meter? > And I remember reading that at least some electric cars are not reducing greenhouse emissions even if they are charged with non-fossil electricity. I'd suggest trying to find a link for this too, because people need to be aware of it if it's true.

incrudible 5y ago

Just because it might be "in bad faith" doesn't make the argument wrong. A lot of subsidies are being pumped into EVs on the assumption that they're a net benefit to CO2 goals. If they are not, or if it is only true for specific models, then that needs to be accounted for. > If a Tesla doesn’t amortize by some napkin analysis, neither would an electric bus That's not a given, these are two quite different vehicles with quite different usage scenarios. A Tesla might not actually get a lot of mileage in its lifetime, whereas a commercial bus would get as much mileage as possible. Having said that, even if it were true that electric buses also are a net negative on emissions, then the obvious answer would be that we shouldn't subsidize those either.

p1necone 5y ago
The argument is also just plain wrong though. Even if 100% of the power generation is from coal, it's still more efficient compared to individual petrol engines in cars. Large stationary constant (ish) speed fossil fuel generators will be more efficient than a bunch of little non constant speed petrol engines in cars.
- incrudible 5y ago
  That's not the argument though. Batteries require a lot of resources to produce, to the point where production of an EV can create more emissions than a comparable gasoline vehicle. If such an EV then fails to offset these emissions during its lifetime, it was a net negative.
  - njarboe 5y ago
    Tesla's goal is to build cars that last for a million miles. Electric motor technology is already there and they are also working on making the other parts of the car last a similar length of time. Also notice how the new model S looks very similar to the old model S. Having old cars look like the newer version is also part of getting people to use cars for a million miles/
    - 5y ago

deertick1 5y ago

I actually think your argument is pretty bad faith. You are, on nothing but assumption alone, assuming you know this persons intentions, you know their opinions, where they got them, and other people just like them with their opinions. Then you go on to ignore their actual argument completely, and say, essentially "who gives a fuck if we have another 20 years excess emissions if people end up in cars" Well, presumably the OP does, because he was making a point as to why it is questionable that EVs are good for the environment. You basically insulted his character and his argument by ad hominem, then said "who even gives a fuck? I just want everyone to own a Tesla!"