10 ms·

Yes. The narrative that electrification just shifts around the pollution is so tired and untrue. The end to end pipeline of EVs is much more efficient than that

Yes. The narrative that electrification just shifts around the pollution is so tired and untrue. The end to end pipeline of EVs is much more efficient than that of gas cars, so even if we start synthesizing fuels that are carbon neutral gas cars will lose. The only reason gas cars could ever exist is because of cheap and dirty fuel. The only car that makes sense in a sustainable system is an EV maybe with synthesized and carbon neutral hydrocarbon range extension for emergencies.

wibagusto 5y ago
I don’t think the point of contention is whether it’s recyclable. Primary issue is: what is the local environmental impact of MINING lithium? For folks who don’t live in Maine it’s a no-brainer: sure, go for it! Bring the USA more domestically produced lithium. But… mining fucks up entire ecosystems and pollutes water etc… and even if companies can “promise” the operation will be clean, come to implementation they likely walk back on that and the damage is done.
- supperburg 5y ago
  I don’t suppose there’s a mining expert who could weigh in?
  - wibagusto 5y ago
    For what it’s worth you don’t need a mining expert to know that establishing a large scale mining operation will fuck up the local region somewhat. At the very least, all the demolition and vehicles, fuel, explosives, chemicals. Shits going to leak into the rivers one way or the other. In addition, they would likely use up a ton of local water supply. It’s a no-brainer. Maine is not in the middle of some desert.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      For what's it worth, I live in a area that has done extensive mining for over 1000 years with no big natural disaster caused by it. Today it is only operational by small scale in comparison, (and it never experienced the big chemical industious mining), but you absolutely can mine the earth without creating havoc. It is just a lot more expensive then. Which is why most mining is done in remote, or poor areas, with laughable regulations, where no one dares complain for the jobs.
      - wibagusto 5y ago
        For what it’s worth, people mined rocks to build the pyramids multiple thousands of years ago. They don’t mine using an army of slaves wielding chisels anymore.
- crowbahr 5y ago
  What's the local environmental impact of drilling oil? Because it's worse than lithium and contributes to a global catastrophe that threatens billions of lives.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Sure, but the available options aren't limited to "mine lithium in Maine" and "do absolutely nothing".
    - peytoncasper 5y ago
      Genuinely curious, what are the alternatives to the three? 1. Mine lithium 2. Drill oil 3. Do nothing You have to store energy somehow, even if the entire world shifted to walking everywhere. Goods still need to traverse the world and thus far there hasn't been anything else with a high enough energy density to get close. The argument being made is that if mining lithium becomes more popular, its likely to lead to advancements that do limit its ecological impact and provide a more sustainable method for storing energy...
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Alternatives: Mine somewhere else. Non-lithium approaches to storing energy.
        crowbahr 5y ago
        If America is benefiting from the Lithium we should also be mining it at home. Let's not shift our negative cost externalities to a different nation but instead own them.
        peytoncasper 5y ago
        Do you have examples of portable, non-mined or extracted alternatives to storing energy?
        5y ago
api 5y ago
I've read numerous analyses arguing that a small to mid size EV releases less CO2 and other pollution than a similarly sized typical gas car (or even a hybrid) even if the electricity comes from 100% coal. Coal releases the most CO2 per unit energy. It's almost pure carbon after all. But to compare with a gasoline car you have to consider: (1) Large power plants are anywhere from 1.5X to 3X more thermally efficient than a small piston engine. How much better depends on whether the power plant is an old school boiler and turbine or a newer supercritical steam or combined cycle plant. (2) Gasoline is the highly refined and quality controlled end product of a long supply chain. Oil must be drilled, sometimes cracked (for heavy oil), shipped (often more than once), refined (this uses a lot of power), doped with small amounts of manufactured additives, then shipped at least one and sometimes two or three more times to a gas station. Every step of that supply chain uses even more energy, and this must be subtracted to get the overall end-to-end efficiency of a car engine. This makes car engine efficiency from oil well to tailpipe really suck. Coal meanwhile is often shipped only once or twice and requires minimal processing, usually just pulverization and then flue gas scrubbers at the exhaust end. (3) ICE cars require a lot more maintenance and fluids that have to be changed, etc., and all that has to also be considered in their energy footprint. EVs are superior in every single way except range and recharge time: complexity of the vehicle, reliability, acceleration and driving experience, urban pollution, overall emissions, and end to end efficiency. They remain superior even in the worst case of a 100% coal fired power grid, and very few regions get their power from only coal. The range and recharge time gap is already small enough to make EVs practical for 90%+ of driving scenarios and the gap is closing. The oil age is over.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  I would like to see a source for the first claim. If I recall correctly from my parent's expertise (energy domain) an efficient large power plant (~60-65%) can be ~ 1.5 times more efficient than a modern ICE engine (averaged, Diesel being better than gasoline, around 40%). 3x would push the efficiency over 100%.
  - api 5y ago
    Can't find it now, but you are probably right for newer and well maintained ICE engines. I'm guessing that the 1.5X-3X range I saw includes old and badly maintained engines. They could also have been measuring overall fuel to wheel efficiency and including a ~15% loss in the transmission and drive train and maybe also including average time spent idling (which doesn't apply to EVs). Keep in mind that there are a lot of shitty cars on the road. A power plant's engine is going to usually be well tuned and maintained because small increases in efficiency can be worth a ton of money when you are generating tens of gigawatt hours per day of power. How often does a typical driver of a middle-aged car take it in to be tuned with the objective of maximizing energy efficiency? I bet the average gap across all cars on the road and including transmission loss is at least 2X. Also it's tough to argue against the second point. Look into how much power is used in the oil to gasoline supply chain, especially if the oil is coming from heavy oil that requires an additional cracking ("upgrading") step or fracked wells that require a lot of energy to drill and hydraulically fracture. I recall reading an analysis years ago arguing that the Canadian tar sands are almost an indirect natural gas to oil conversion operation rather than a net producer of energy. A huge amount of gas is burned to get that stuff out of the ground and into a form that refineries can handle. You could instead just burn that gas in a combined cycle power plant and run EVs with it and emit a lot less carbon. Thing is when you are buying any oil product you are really not buying energy. It's ridiculously expensive compared to energy from any other source. You are buying conveniently stored energy and paying a huge markup for it.
ensiferum 5y ago
I think the only really sustainable car is the one that doesn't exist. Regardless whether your car is electric or ICU it's just a method of transportation that is wasteful of energy and resources and doesn't scale.
giantg2 5y ago
Just because it's cleaner doesn't make it clean. My point is that we should be asking questions about the impacts so we can minimize the negative ones. For example, where is the energy coming from to charge those batteries? Even if we say wind or solar, those devices end up in landfills. Maybe we should look at making these devices recyclable as an integral part of the strategy.

wibagusto 5y ago

I don’t think the point of contention is whether it’s recyclable. Primary issue is: what is the local environmental impact of MINING lithium? For folks who don’t live in Maine it’s a no-brainer: sure, go for it! Bring the USA more domestically produced lithium. But… mining fucks up entire ecosystems and pollutes water etc… and even if companies can “promise” the operation will be clean, come to implementation they likely walk back on that and the damage is done.

supperburg 5y ago
I don’t suppose there’s a mining expert who could weigh in?
- wibagusto 5y ago
  For what it’s worth you don’t need a mining expert to know that establishing a large scale mining operation will fuck up the local region somewhat. At the very least, all the demolition and vehicles, fuel, explosives, chemicals. Shits going to leak into the rivers one way or the other. In addition, they would likely use up a ton of local water supply. It’s a no-brainer. Maine is not in the middle of some desert.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    For what's it worth, I live in a area that has done extensive mining for over 1000 years with no big natural disaster caused by it. Today it is only operational by small scale in comparison, (and it never experienced the big chemical industious mining), but you absolutely can mine the earth without creating havoc. It is just a lot more expensive then. Which is why most mining is done in remote, or poor areas, with laughable regulations, where no one dares complain for the jobs.
    - wibagusto 5y ago
      For what it’s worth, people mined rocks to build the pyramids multiple thousands of years ago. They don’t mine using an army of slaves wielding chisels anymore.
crowbahr 5y ago
What's the local environmental impact of drilling oil? Because it's worse than lithium and contributes to a global catastrophe that threatens billions of lives.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Sure, but the available options aren't limited to "mine lithium in Maine" and "do absolutely nothing".
  - peytoncasper 5y ago
    Genuinely curious, what are the alternatives to the three? 1. Mine lithium 2. Drill oil 3. Do nothing You have to store energy somehow, even if the entire world shifted to walking everywhere. Goods still need to traverse the world and thus far there hasn't been anything else with a high enough energy density to get close. The argument being made is that if mining lithium becomes more popular, its likely to lead to advancements that do limit its ecological impact and provide a more sustainable method for storing energy...
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Alternatives: Mine somewhere else. Non-lithium approaches to storing energy.
      - crowbahr 5y ago
        If America is benefiting from the Lithium we should also be mining it at home. Let's not shift our negative cost externalities to a different nation but instead own them.
      - peytoncasper 5y ago
        Do you have examples of portable, non-mined or extracted alternatives to storing energy?
        5y ago

api 5y ago

I've read numerous analyses arguing that a small to mid size EV releases less CO2 and other pollution than a similarly sized typical gas car (or even a hybrid) even if the electricity comes from 100% coal. Coal releases the most CO2 per unit energy. It's almost pure carbon after all. But to compare with a gasoline car you have to consider: (1) Large power plants are anywhere from 1.5X to 3X more thermally efficient than a small piston engine. How much better depends on whether the power plant is an old school boiler and turbine or a newer supercritical steam or combined cycle plant. (2) Gasoline is the highly refined and quality controlled end product of a long supply chain. Oil must be drilled, sometimes cracked (for heavy oil), shipped (often more than once), refined (this uses a lot of power), doped with small amounts of manufactured additives, then shipped at least one and sometimes two or three more times to a gas station. Every step of that supply chain uses even more energy, and this must be subtracted to get the overall end-to-end efficiency of a car engine. This makes car engine efficiency from oil well to tailpipe really suck. Coal meanwhile is often shipped only once or twice and requires minimal processing, usually just pulverization and then flue gas scrubbers at the exhaust end. (3) ICE cars require a lot more maintenance and fluids that have to be changed, etc., and all that has to also be considered in their energy footprint. EVs are superior in every single way except range and recharge time: complexity of the vehicle, reliability, acceleration and driving experience, urban pollution, overall emissions, and end to end efficiency. They remain superior even in the worst case of a 100% coal fired power grid, and very few regions get their power from only coal. The range and recharge time gap is already small enough to make EVs practical for 90%+ of driving scenarios and the gap is closing. The oil age is over.

AdrianB1 5y ago
I would like to see a source for the first claim. If I recall correctly from my parent's expertise (energy domain) an efficient large power plant (~60-65%) can be ~ 1.5 times more efficient than a modern ICE engine (averaged, Diesel being better than gasoline, around 40%). 3x would push the efficiency over 100%.
- api 5y ago
  Can't find it now, but you are probably right for newer and well maintained ICE engines. I'm guessing that the 1.5X-3X range I saw includes old and badly maintained engines. They could also have been measuring overall fuel to wheel efficiency and including a ~15% loss in the transmission and drive train and maybe also including average time spent idling (which doesn't apply to EVs). Keep in mind that there are a lot of shitty cars on the road. A power plant's engine is going to usually be well tuned and maintained because small increases in efficiency can be worth a ton of money when you are generating tens of gigawatt hours per day of power. How often does a typical driver of a middle-aged car take it in to be tuned with the objective of maximizing energy efficiency? I bet the average gap across all cars on the road and including transmission loss is at least 2X. Also it's tough to argue against the second point. Look into how much power is used in the oil to gasoline supply chain, especially if the oil is coming from heavy oil that requires an additional cracking ("upgrading") step or fracked wells that require a lot of energy to drill and hydraulically fracture. I recall reading an analysis years ago arguing that the Canadian tar sands are almost an indirect natural gas to oil conversion operation rather than a net producer of energy. A huge amount of gas is burned to get that stuff out of the ground and into a form that refineries can handle. You could instead just burn that gas in a combined cycle power plant and run EVs with it and emit a lot less carbon. Thing is when you are buying any oil product you are really not buying energy. It's ridiculously expensive compared to energy from any other source. You are buying conveniently stored energy and paying a huge markup for it.

ensiferum 5y ago

I think the only really sustainable car is the one that doesn't exist. Regardless whether your car is electric or ICU it's just a method of transportation that is wasteful of energy and resources and doesn't scale.

giantg2 5y ago

Just because it's cleaner doesn't make it clean. My point is that we should be asking questions about the impacts so we can minimize the negative ones. For example, where is the energy coming from to charge those batteries? Even if we say wind or solar, those devices end up in landfills. Maybe we should look at making these devices recyclable as an integral part of the strategy.