4 ms·

Based on how @ZeroGravitas quoted me, he must have replied about 30 seconds after I posted, and 30 seconds before I edited my opening line to "A car requires ab

Based on how @ZeroGravitas quoted me, he must have replied about 30 seconds after I posted, and 30 seconds before I edited my opening line to "A car requires about as much, or even more CO2 for its manufacturing, than a lifetime of driving". So, we are in agreement on that. But, it is clear that he did not skim the report from Volvo before replying and insulting me. I think Volvos report is more relevant, here, because it's actually realistic. Volvo is dedicated to transitioning their busines to EVs, and they are in a unique position, as they manufacture an identical EV and ICE car on the same manufacturing line. They can, therefore, compare like for like. Nothing else he mentioned seems relevant to the central issue. That manufacturing to support this ICE ban will result in a surge of CO2, that you believe will be offset in the future, when we have improved the energy mix of our grid. For clarity, most of the world is not as progressive as California; globally, clean energy is about 5% of the grid. Nuclear is another 5%, and they plan on reducing this. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution?stackMode=relative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... Switching to new EV cars will dump vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it is hard to see how that does not accelerate climate change? Front loading a 60% CO2 fee and hoping to offset it over, what, 20 years? The batteries won't last that long. Plus, you need to manufacture the solar panels and wind turbines, and that also is CO2 intensive and missing from your calculations.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> Switching to new EV cars will dump vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it is hard to see how that does not accelerate climate change? Front loading a 60% CO2 fee and hoping to offset it over, what, 20 years? My link, and every sensible discussion of this over the last decade has answered your rhetorical question. The EV pays itself back in CO2 after a year. Every year after that it offsets enough CO2 to build another EV, which then can do the same. We had this whole conversation about solar panels and wind turbines too. They also have short and shrinking CO2 paybacks. Weve passed the point where we were in carbon "debt" for these techs and are in the payback phase.
mturmon 4y ago
First, this is a California law so the grid source mix in California rather than the “world” scenario in the Volvo report seems relevant. (That report gives 3 scenarios, but your commments seem derived from their “world” fuel scenario which is not representative of California.) The link you just supplied repeats this error on your part. Here is a California-relevant link: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2022-02/new-data-indicates-california-remains-ahead-clean-electricity-goals https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2022-02/new-data-indicates-ca... Note especially that the state is working hard to simultaneously move the grid mix to renewables. Second, I think your notion of a “switch” is getting it wrong. This is a transition over the next 13 years, of new car sales. It’s not front loading, it’s a gradual replacement. The UCS link shows a 1-2 year break even point on CO2, not 20 years. I really think your analysis here is on the wrong track, and that California is doing some solid work, both with promoting renewables, and on signposting a transition to electric power, in the absence of good Federal leadership. See also, the recent moves to curtail natural gas hookups (fought by the gas industry) and to monitor and limit excessive methane emissions.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> Switching to new EV cars will dump vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. And it is hard to see how that does not accelerate climate change? Front loading a 60% CO2 fee and hoping to offset it over, what, 20 years? My link, and every sensible discussion of this over the last decade has answered your rhetorical question. The EV pays itself back in CO2 after a year. Every year after that it offsets enough CO2 to build another EV, which then can do the same. We had this whole conversation about solar panels and wind turbines too. They also have short and shrinking CO2 paybacks. Weve passed the point where we were in carbon "debt" for these techs and are in the payback phase.

mturmon 4y ago

First, this is a California law so the grid source mix in California rather than the “world” scenario in the Volvo report seems relevant. (That report gives 3 scenarios, but your commments seem derived from their “world” fuel scenario which is not representative of California.) The link you just supplied repeats this error on your part. Here is a California-relevant link: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2022-02/new-data-indicates-california-remains-ahead-clean-electricity-goals https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2022-02/new-data-indicates-ca... Note especially that the state is working hard to simultaneously move the grid mix to renewables. Second, I think your notion of a “switch” is getting it wrong. This is a transition over the next 13 years, of new car sales. It’s not front loading, it’s a gradual replacement. The UCS link shows a 1-2 year break even point on CO2, not 20 years. I really think your analysis here is on the wrong track, and that California is doing some solid work, both with promoting renewables, and on signposting a transition to electric power, in the absence of good Federal leadership. See also, the recent moves to curtail natural gas hookups (fought by the gas industry) and to monitor and limit excessive methane emissions.