4 ms·

Because it's pretty easy to use google and look up the fact that the carbon intensity of EVs is already significantly lower than ICE vehicles, and the gap is on

by zelos 5y ago

Because it's pretty easy to use google and look up the fact that the carbon intensity of EVs is already significantly lower than ICE vehicles, and the gap is only going to widen as more renewables (and possibly nuclear) come online.

josh2600 5y ago
One of my favorite facts of recent note is the rapid decrease in the price of solar. This article by Ramez Naam puts the whole thing into perspective: https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-cheap-2020/ https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-c...
rglover 5y ago
You don't need to be snarky. My point isn't the vehicles themselves, it's the energy required to power those vehicles.
- dylan604 5y ago
  The power plants are already there. They are already polluting however they are polluting. So are ICE vehicles. If you remove the ICE vehicles, that pollution goes away. Why is this hard?
  - rglover 5y ago
    Why do you need to be snarky? It's hard because every time I ask questions or challenge the narrative, I get the same passive aggressive bullshit response (especially so on HN). Your comment is a veiled "you're an idiot," which immediately makes me disregard what you're saying.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      It wasn't meant as snark. I honestly want to know why people disregard the effect that removing ICE pollution would have. We have seen direct evidence of this when the pandemic lockdown went into effect. People in LA could see the sky again. Similar stories from all over like this. Stop driving polluting cars, and the air gets cleaner. I was shocked at just how fast, but mother nature is impressive. I think your snark meter could use some recalibrating. I read the parent comment you also claimed being snarky, yet I'm not reading any snark in it. Also, I've never met you, so I'd never call you an idiot or anyone I don't know.
      - rglover 5y ago
        If I said "why is this hard?" or "it's pretty easy to use google and look up the fact" to you in person, you'd think I was a dick. The calibration is fine, you just got called out. More to your point, it's not a question of whether or not it could be an environmental benefit, it's about grid capacity. Is it realistic/feasible for the grid to handle the increased load for more EVs (assuming we expect no interruption in current standard of living while simultaneously meeting Paris Accord goals in 2030)? Texas, California, and New York are asking people to conserve energy due to grid instability before there's a mass of EVs on the road.
        dylan604 5y ago
        >If I said "why is this hard?" or "it's pretty easy to use google and look up the fact" to you in person, you'd think I was a dick. Thanks for letting me know how I'd feel, but this is not what I would think. We'll just put it down to I just have thick skin. I'd just accept the challenge and continue on. <shrug> Yes, Texas power grid is run by a bunch of people unconcerned about what they are charged with doing. ERCOT has proven itself unable to see the future. It's not that the grid as installed can't handle demands, it's their managment of power generation that is totally off base. "Let's plan downtime when it's getting hot where we know (at least should know) people will put a higher demand on the system" was the most recent. Can't speak to CA,NY,etc. CA was definitely hampered by things like being managed by Enron. So essentially, it seems to be coming down to incompetent/corrupt management.
        rglover 5y ago
        > Thanks for letting me know how I'd feel You're welcome. Thank you for suggesting I get a tune up. > Yes, Texas power grid is run by a bunch of people unconcerned about what they are charged with doing So that doesn't sound like a grid that's prepared—irrespective of the reason why—to handle the load increase you'd expect to see. And this is the point, before people shame companies for not jumping on the bandwagon, it should be considered if it makes sense to do it (e.g., if we sell these cars, will people be able to use them as the customer base expands, will this negatively impact customer support, etc).
    - mahogany 5y ago
      Honestly, your opener "Where do people think the energy is going to come from for these electric vehicles?" could be interpreted as being just as snarky. That statement also has an implied "these people are idiots".
      - rglover 5y ago
        Fair enough.
- zelos 5y ago
  Sorry, I didn’t mean to be snarky. It’s just that it’s a weird argument for the head of a car company to make, as the alternative to EVs currently is no cars at all. That seems pretty bad from a profit perspective.

by zelos 5y ago

josh2600 5y ago

One of my favorite facts of recent note is the rapid decrease in the price of solar. This article by Ramez Naam puts the whole thing into perspective: https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-cheap-2020/ https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-c...

rglover 5y ago

You don't need to be snarky. My point isn't the vehicles themselves, it's the energy required to power those vehicles.

dylan604 5y ago
The power plants are already there. They are already polluting however they are polluting. So are ICE vehicles. If you remove the ICE vehicles, that pollution goes away. Why is this hard?
- rglover 5y ago
  Why do you need to be snarky? It's hard because every time I ask questions or challenge the narrative, I get the same passive aggressive bullshit response (especially so on HN). Your comment is a veiled "you're an idiot," which immediately makes me disregard what you're saying.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    It wasn't meant as snark. I honestly want to know why people disregard the effect that removing ICE pollution would have. We have seen direct evidence of this when the pandemic lockdown went into effect. People in LA could see the sky again. Similar stories from all over like this. Stop driving polluting cars, and the air gets cleaner. I was shocked at just how fast, but mother nature is impressive. I think your snark meter could use some recalibrating. I read the parent comment you also claimed being snarky, yet I'm not reading any snark in it. Also, I've never met you, so I'd never call you an idiot or anyone I don't know.
    - rglover 5y ago
      If I said "why is this hard?" or "it's pretty easy to use google and look up the fact" to you in person, you'd think I was a dick. The calibration is fine, you just got called out. More to your point, it's not a question of whether or not it could be an environmental benefit, it's about grid capacity. Is it realistic/feasible for the grid to handle the increased load for more EVs (assuming we expect no interruption in current standard of living while simultaneously meeting Paris Accord goals in 2030)? Texas, California, and New York are asking people to conserve energy due to grid instability before there's a mass of EVs on the road.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        >If I said "why is this hard?" or "it's pretty easy to use google and look up the fact" to you in person, you'd think I was a dick. Thanks for letting me know how I'd feel, but this is not what I would think. We'll just put it down to I just have thick skin. I'd just accept the challenge and continue on. <shrug> Yes, Texas power grid is run by a bunch of people unconcerned about what they are charged with doing. ERCOT has proven itself unable to see the future. It's not that the grid as installed can't handle demands, it's their managment of power generation that is totally off base. "Let's plan downtime when it's getting hot where we know (at least should know) people will put a higher demand on the system" was the most recent. Can't speak to CA,NY,etc. CA was definitely hampered by things like being managed by Enron. So essentially, it seems to be coming down to incompetent/corrupt management.
        rglover 5y ago
        > Thanks for letting me know how I'd feel You're welcome. Thank you for suggesting I get a tune up. > Yes, Texas power grid is run by a bunch of people unconcerned about what they are charged with doing So that doesn't sound like a grid that's prepared—irrespective of the reason why—to handle the load increase you'd expect to see. And this is the point, before people shame companies for not jumping on the bandwagon, it should be considered if it makes sense to do it (e.g., if we sell these cars, will people be able to use them as the customer base expands, will this negatively impact customer support, etc).
  - mahogany 5y ago
    Honestly, your opener "Where do people think the energy is going to come from for these electric vehicles?" could be interpreted as being just as snarky. That statement also has an implied "these people are idiots".
    - rglover 5y ago
      Fair enough.
zelos 5y ago
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be snarky. It’s just that it’s a weird argument for the head of a car company to make, as the alternative to EVs currently is no cars at all. That seems pretty bad from a profit perspective.