8 ms·

You don't need an EV to cut your carbon emissions from oil

50 points by Gigacore 5y ago

sp332 5y ago
Gigacore, the article isn't really about CO2 emissions. Microfibers from t-shirts aren't going to contribute to atmospheric carbon any time soon.
- hannob 5y ago
  There are already quite substantial emissions when turning oil into plastics and other products. Steam crackers are among the biggest industrial carbon sources. But that's not all: The common end of life processing of most plastics these days is waste incineration (causes CO2) or landfils (may cause methane, which is worse than CO2). Sooner or later most carbon embedded in the oil used for products will end up in the atmosphere.
wittyusername 5y ago
Sorry to change the topic but why is his web site constantly moving around so much? Sheesh
chiefofgxbxl 5y ago
This article is about petroleum-derived products, and cutting your carbon footprint by choosing alternatives. One thing I can't shake about the EV "revolution" is that it's going to require a massive expansion of our renewable energy capacity, like solar and wind, but we also need that renewable energy for other things, like household energy usage. If we were rational and serious about making the biggest impact, we would reduce car dependency so the green electricity we generate can go to less wasteful means. It seems incredibly wasteful to massively build out green energy to continue to prop up a system where we all drive several-ton hunks of metal one mile to grab a coffee at a drive-thru. I see stock pictures of traffic jams [0] and just think that EVs are a green "band-aid" to cover up a wasteful lifestyle. [0] https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/traffic-jam-in-los-angeles-picture-id140452002 https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/traffic-jam-in-los-ange...
- mwint 5y ago
  Importantly, it’s a band-aid that consumers (especially in the US) can be convinced to want - EVs are fun to drive! Versus the “right” solution, which is near impossible to sell to the populace.
  - JulianMorrison 5y ago
    EVs are going to drive out gasoline for very comparable reasons to digital cameras driving out film cameras. That's a win for CO2, a win for air pollution in cities (that may be shaving points off people's IQ and definitely is shaving years off their lives), and a win for fungibility of energy generation. As gasoline infrastructure withers, it will be a win for retaining progress; it will no longer be possible to go back. None of these things end car culture, but switching away from gasoline may help to de-fang it by reducing the macho attraction. If cars become just about getting from A to B, then alternatives may start to look more viable.
    - N1H1L 5y ago
      It's also a win for reducing oil dependency for many nations. Many of the oil producing countries are not always the most savory characters, and energy independence is an important national security goal in itself
      - JulianMorrison 5y ago
        One which can be obtained the good way, or the bad way, yes. EVs will reduce pressure to allow damaging pipelines and shale oil.
  - kitsunesoba 5y ago
    And perhaps more importantly, there isn’t miles of red tape and NIMBYism to overcome to be able to roll out EVs. I’m strongly in favor of nationwide electric rail, but I also know that accomplishing that will be nearly impossible short of the federal government steamrolling it through, which itself is unlikely due to oil and auto lobbying. So I see it as a sort of, “take what you can get” situation.
bolasanibk 5y ago
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. People concentrate too much on the last one and not nearly enough on the other two. I presume because they require a change in lifestyle people are not willing to do.
- option 5y ago
  Reducing energy consumption is not the answer. Producing more of it cleaner and cheaper (nuclear + solar + wind + storage) is.
  - sidpatil 5y ago
    > Reducing energy consumption is not the answer. Why not?
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Presumably because it would affect the price of bitcoin?
    - option 5y ago
      Because it correlates positively with the quality of life and civilization capabilities.
      - adrianN 5y ago
        No it doesn't. If I heat my home with underfloor heating and a heat pump that provides significantly more quality of life than a coal oven while also using a fraction of the energy. GDP and energy consumption have been decoupled in industrialized nations for decades now.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Because it isn't feasible. Many people currently using electricity wouldn't want to limit their use because it would decrease their quality of life, and many people live worse than that and would probably like to be able to use more electricity. Consumer electricity consumption will only go up globally. Industrially optimisations can probably be made, but many countries are yet to industrialise and we can't really refuse them the right to.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gttalbot 5y ago
No, you don't, but my Mustang Mach E is really fun to drive. That's one of the great sort-of secrets of EV's
tagoregrtst 5y ago
No, just drive 10 mph slower than usual. Power scales as velocity cubed. So: 80 mph vs 70 mph [1] is a 10/70 increase in speed or 1.14 1.14 ^ 3 = 1.5 or 50% more power required to drive 80 mph vs 70 mph. There are some nuances. ICE efficiency goes up a lot with load. Perhaps you’re not exactly in a v^3 regime. There are fixed power costs. All these and others lessen the impact of doing 80. But the point remains. Slow down. [1] if you dont like my numbers do (vhigh/vlow)^3. The formula doesn't work for very low speeds though (driving 20 in our cars is much more efficient that 10 mph).
- tenthirtyam 5y ago
  Hmm. But over a fixed distance, the overall energy expenditure scales as v^2 (for v^3 power regime). Double the speed implies octuple (?) the power but only for half the time implies quadruple the energy spend. Not invalidating your point, but just a minor adjustment. :)
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    I love it :) Never considered that point but, as a rebuttal, consider that trip time vs speed is extremely non linear and stochastic (due to traffic, lights, etc). In my experience you have drive much faster than x% to increase your average speed x% and it doesn't appear to be a linear scaling at all. Of course, you shouldn't be doing 80 in urban roads
- nerdponx 5y ago
  Subjectively it feels like highway speeds have been going up steadily over the last 10 years. Maybe not. But I don't like that "cruising" speed on US interstates is 70-75. Seems dangerous and wasteful, just to save a few minutes travel time. But then again people also drive on the highways with huge empty pickup trucks all the time, so they probably just don't care about waste.
  - danans 5y ago
    > Subjectively it feels like highway speeds have been going up steadily over the last 10 years. Maybe not. But I don't like that "cruising" speed on US interstates is 70-75 Secretly, I hope that range anxiety in EV sticks around a little longer so that people lower their average speeds on the freeway to max out their range. That, coupled with a growing realization that most of the fun with driving is in the peppy acceleration and good handling which is pretty much table stakes for modern EVs across the price spectrum. High sustained top speed in a straight line with an overpowered ICE car is boring and should be buried with the Lamborghinis and Ferraris (among other trends from the 80s).
mcguire 5y ago
Anyone notice the shift from CO2 emissions to plastic waste? "A single plastic particle can absorb up to 1,000,000 times more toxic chemicals than the water around it." Really, 5Gyres? Really? That is a content-free sentence. "That said, we cannot deny the positive uses of some of the products based on petroleum. A few have saved lives!" A few. Yes, a few. Sigh.
daxfohl 5y ago
I thought steel and concrete were the biggest contributors. Or is it transport and plastic? Why can't we just make digging oil way more expensive and let the rest of the detail work itself out?
jacknews 5y ago
Why is the list of single-use plastics shown always bags and straws? These items use minuscule amounts of plastic, are potentially more environmentally friendly than the alternatives, and have potential second uses (I re-use plastic bags as waste-basket liners, toiletry bag, etc, etc). On the other hand, I never see COSMETICS packaging mentioned (although at least this article mentions microbeads). Toothpaste tubes, shampoo and showergel bottles, lipstick caddies, face-cream pots, etc, etc. These must be a far larger source of waste plastic.
- Gigacore 5y ago
  The problem is not everyone thinks and acts the same. For many a single-use straw is a matter of connivence. They are minuscule in form but the volume of trash produced outweighs the rest.

50 points by Gigacore 5y ago

Gigacore, the article isn't really about CO2 emissions. Microfibers from t-shirts aren't going to contribute to atmospheric carbon any time soon.

hannob 5y ago
There are already quite substantial emissions when turning oil into plastics and other products. Steam crackers are among the biggest industrial carbon sources. But that's not all: The common end of life processing of most plastics these days is waste incineration (causes CO2) or landfils (may cause methane, which is worse than CO2). Sooner or later most carbon embedded in the oil used for products will end up in the atmosphere.

wittyusername 5y ago

Sorry to change the topic but why is his web site constantly moving around so much? Sheesh

chiefofgxbxl 5y ago

This article is about petroleum-derived products, and cutting your carbon footprint by choosing alternatives. One thing I can't shake about the EV "revolution" is that it's going to require a massive expansion of our renewable energy capacity, like solar and wind, but we also need that renewable energy for other things, like household energy usage. If we were rational and serious about making the biggest impact, we would reduce car dependency so the green electricity we generate can go to less wasteful means. It seems incredibly wasteful to massively build out green energy to continue to prop up a system where we all drive several-ton hunks of metal one mile to grab a coffee at a drive-thru. I see stock pictures of traffic jams [0] and just think that EVs are a green "band-aid" to cover up a wasteful lifestyle. [0] https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/traffic-jam-in-los-angeles-picture-id140452002 https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/traffic-jam-in-los-ange...

mwint 5y ago
Importantly, it’s a band-aid that consumers (especially in the US) can be convinced to want - EVs are fun to drive! Versus the “right” solution, which is near impossible to sell to the populace.
- JulianMorrison 5y ago
  EVs are going to drive out gasoline for very comparable reasons to digital cameras driving out film cameras. That's a win for CO2, a win for air pollution in cities (that may be shaving points off people's IQ and definitely is shaving years off their lives), and a win for fungibility of energy generation. As gasoline infrastructure withers, it will be a win for retaining progress; it will no longer be possible to go back. None of these things end car culture, but switching away from gasoline may help to de-fang it by reducing the macho attraction. If cars become just about getting from A to B, then alternatives may start to look more viable.
  - N1H1L 5y ago
    It's also a win for reducing oil dependency for many nations. Many of the oil producing countries are not always the most savory characters, and energy independence is an important national security goal in itself
    - JulianMorrison 5y ago
      One which can be obtained the good way, or the bad way, yes. EVs will reduce pressure to allow damaging pipelines and shale oil.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  And perhaps more importantly, there isn’t miles of red tape and NIMBYism to overcome to be able to roll out EVs. I’m strongly in favor of nationwide electric rail, but I also know that accomplishing that will be nearly impossible short of the federal government steamrolling it through, which itself is unlikely due to oil and auto lobbying. So I see it as a sort of, “take what you can get” situation.

bolasanibk 5y ago

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. People concentrate too much on the last one and not nearly enough on the other two. I presume because they require a change in lifestyle people are not willing to do.

option 5y ago
Reducing energy consumption is not the answer. Producing more of it cleaner and cheaper (nuclear + solar + wind + storage) is.
- sidpatil 5y ago
  > Reducing energy consumption is not the answer. Why not?
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Presumably because it would affect the price of bitcoin?
  - option 5y ago
    Because it correlates positively with the quality of life and civilization capabilities.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      No it doesn't. If I heat my home with underfloor heating and a heat pump that provides significantly more quality of life than a coal oven while also using a fraction of the energy. GDP and energy consumption have been decoupled in industrialized nations for decades now.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Because it isn't feasible. Many people currently using electricity wouldn't want to limit their use because it would decrease their quality of life, and many people live worse than that and would probably like to be able to use more electricity. Consumer electricity consumption will only go up globally. Industrially optimisations can probably be made, but many countries are yet to industrialise and we can't really refuse them the right to.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gttalbot 5y ago

No, you don't, but my Mustang Mach E is really fun to drive. That's one of the great sort-of secrets of EV's

tagoregrtst 5y ago

No, just drive 10 mph slower than usual. Power scales as velocity cubed. So: 80 mph vs 70 mph [1] is a 10/70 increase in speed or 1.14 1.14 ^ 3 = 1.5 or 50% more power required to drive 80 mph vs 70 mph. There are some nuances. ICE efficiency goes up a lot with load. Perhaps you’re not exactly in a v^3 regime. There are fixed power costs. All these and others lessen the impact of doing 80. But the point remains. Slow down. [1] if you dont like my numbers do (vhigh/vlow)^3. The formula doesn't work for very low speeds though (driving 20 in our cars is much more efficient that 10 mph).

tenthirtyam 5y ago
Hmm. But over a fixed distance, the overall energy expenditure scales as v^2 (for v^3 power regime). Double the speed implies octuple (?) the power but only for half the time implies quadruple the energy spend. Not invalidating your point, but just a minor adjustment. :)
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  I love it :) Never considered that point but, as a rebuttal, consider that trip time vs speed is extremely non linear and stochastic (due to traffic, lights, etc). In my experience you have drive much faster than x% to increase your average speed x% and it doesn't appear to be a linear scaling at all. Of course, you shouldn't be doing 80 in urban roads
nerdponx 5y ago
Subjectively it feels like highway speeds have been going up steadily over the last 10 years. Maybe not. But I don't like that "cruising" speed on US interstates is 70-75. Seems dangerous and wasteful, just to save a few minutes travel time. But then again people also drive on the highways with huge empty pickup trucks all the time, so they probably just don't care about waste.
- danans 5y ago
  > Subjectively it feels like highway speeds have been going up steadily over the last 10 years. Maybe not. But I don't like that "cruising" speed on US interstates is 70-75 Secretly, I hope that range anxiety in EV sticks around a little longer so that people lower their average speeds on the freeway to max out their range. That, coupled with a growing realization that most of the fun with driving is in the peppy acceleration and good handling which is pretty much table stakes for modern EVs across the price spectrum. High sustained top speed in a straight line with an overpowered ICE car is boring and should be buried with the Lamborghinis and Ferraris (among other trends from the 80s).

mcguire 5y ago

Anyone notice the shift from CO2 emissions to plastic waste? "A single plastic particle can absorb up to 1,000,000 times more toxic chemicals than the water around it." Really, 5Gyres? Really? That is a content-free sentence. "That said, we cannot deny the positive uses of some of the products based on petroleum. A few have saved lives!" A few. Yes, a few. Sigh.

daxfohl 5y ago

I thought steel and concrete were the biggest contributors. Or is it transport and plastic? Why can't we just make digging oil way more expensive and let the rest of the detail work itself out?

jacknews 5y ago

Why is the list of single-use plastics shown always bags and straws? These items use minuscule amounts of plastic, are potentially more environmentally friendly than the alternatives, and have potential second uses (I re-use plastic bags as waste-basket liners, toiletry bag, etc, etc). On the other hand, I never see COSMETICS packaging mentioned (although at least this article mentions microbeads). Toothpaste tubes, shampoo and showergel bottles, lipstick caddies, face-cream pots, etc, etc. These must be a far larger source of waste plastic.

Gigacore 5y ago
The problem is not everyone thinks and acts the same. For many a single-use straw is a matter of connivence. They are minuscule in form but the volume of trash produced outweighs the rest.