4 ms·

Same thing that is wrong with all cars: we can not avoid boiling the oceans while we waste that much energy to move just a few persons. EVs and hybrids are bet

Same thing that is wrong with all cars: we can not avoid boiling the oceans while we waste that much energy to move just a few persons. EVs and hybrids are better, but not by much. Replacing a private car with another private car, regardless of engine isn't as useful as removing that car form the road all together.

wilg 4y ago
EVs are about six times better than gas cars. That is a lot! EVs only give off about 30% more carbon than rail per passenger-km (on current UK electricity mix). And they are significantly more versatile! Carbon efficiency will at least double in most areas as we move to greener grids, without people needing to get new cars. https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html Don't confuse disliking cars with environmentalism!
- snotrockets 4y ago
  Tailpipes are only a small part of car-based pollution. When it comes to particles emitted from tires, EVs are much worse offenders than many internal combustion cars. There's just no way to keep current use of private cars and achieve climate goals. Even if EVs would be magically twice as efficient as they are, just having a car is disastrous to the future of our planet, hence we should put efforts into reducing the need for cars, rather than trying to shave a few grams of particulate matter.
  - Eavolution 4y ago
    I would like to know how I can live in the countryside without a car
  - kareemm 4y ago
    Do you have a source on the claim about tires? Genuinely curious.
  - wilg 4y ago
    As far as I'm aware, tire particles are not a relevant contributor to global warming. We should try to improve there, and I would support regulatory goals around that. EVs are also only about 20% worse on tire wear compared to gas cars (due to the weight), so it's not like double or anything. Tire wear just isn't a significant issue for the most pressing concerns we have. (But again, worth looking into.) Also, I'm not just talking about tailpipes. EVs are better from a carbon perspective over the whole life of the car, including both manufacturing and use. The only way to achieve our climate goals is to actually reduce carbon emissions. It's not necessary to eliminate private cars to do this. I think we should invest in plenty of other transit types that are proven to lower carbon emissions. But cars aren't going away and they don't need to. It's a false choice between "reducing the need for cars" and "making cars more efficient". We can do both, but EVs are going to be a major part of reducing carbon emissions for personal transport.
    - iinnPP 4y ago
      Some Googling(without verification). These are the first results to answer the questions posed. There are ~1.5billion vehicles worldwide (2019) A Tesla apparently has 8kg worth of battery lithium per vehicle. That's 12,000,000 tonnes of lithium. The reserves worldwide are 14,000,000 tonnes (End of Google info) So once the whole world is on EV, we are either reducing cars or pulling from the ocean. Only one of those options is doable by a politician and they will 100% take the easy route. Every single time.
      - Veedrac 4y ago
        We can just find more reserves, no? Reserves have gone from 13m to 22m between 2010 and 2022[1] and I don't know of any reason they'd cap out there. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1253739/lithium-reserves-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1253739/lithium-reserves...
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    I have pondered the idea of removing a lot of the cars and how it would happen. Then I started looking into Lithium mining (and how that has to come from water in mass quantities by 2030 if politicians are to succeed of their lofty goals. Politicians, for the most part, fail to do anything well. This will be no exception. So how do they reach the goal? Outlaw ICE vehicles. Slowly but surely you will see less and less cars on the road. The income needed to own a car will go up. Any government incentives will be eaten by increasing prices (as happened with Ford not even a week after a rebate was announced.) Just a guess of course.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I think the less favorable (and more accurate) metric would be carbon elisions amortized over productive lifetime: a trainset can last for half a century, while an ordinary consumer in the developed world might go through 4-5 new cars in that period. Making new cars (even and especially EVs) is carbon intensive and should probably be factored in.
  - wilg 4y ago
    It's already normalized to emissions per passenger-km, so I don't think the lifetime of the vehicle would skew it much unless it's efficiency changes over it's lifespan. Additionally, someone buying 4 or 5 new electric vehicles is not a problem. Unless they put the old car in a landfill, that will still replace 4 or 5 gas cars on the road as they are resold down the line. The carbon costs of producing them are already factored in!

wilg 4y ago

EVs are about six times better than gas cars. That is a lot! EVs only give off about 30% more carbon than rail per passenger-km (on current UK electricity mix). And they are significantly more versatile! Carbon efficiency will at least double in most areas as we move to greener grids, without people needing to get new cars. https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html Don't confuse disliking cars with environmentalism!

snotrockets 4y ago
Tailpipes are only a small part of car-based pollution. When it comes to particles emitted from tires, EVs are much worse offenders than many internal combustion cars. There's just no way to keep current use of private cars and achieve climate goals. Even if EVs would be magically twice as efficient as they are, just having a car is disastrous to the future of our planet, hence we should put efforts into reducing the need for cars, rather than trying to shave a few grams of particulate matter.
- Eavolution 4y ago
  I would like to know how I can live in the countryside without a car
- kareemm 4y ago
  Do you have a source on the claim about tires? Genuinely curious.
- wilg 4y ago
  As far as I'm aware, tire particles are not a relevant contributor to global warming. We should try to improve there, and I would support regulatory goals around that. EVs are also only about 20% worse on tire wear compared to gas cars (due to the weight), so it's not like double or anything. Tire wear just isn't a significant issue for the most pressing concerns we have. (But again, worth looking into.) Also, I'm not just talking about tailpipes. EVs are better from a carbon perspective over the whole life of the car, including both manufacturing and use. The only way to achieve our climate goals is to actually reduce carbon emissions. It's not necessary to eliminate private cars to do this. I think we should invest in plenty of other transit types that are proven to lower carbon emissions. But cars aren't going away and they don't need to. It's a false choice between "reducing the need for cars" and "making cars more efficient". We can do both, but EVs are going to be a major part of reducing carbon emissions for personal transport.
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    Some Googling(without verification). These are the first results to answer the questions posed. There are ~1.5billion vehicles worldwide (2019) A Tesla apparently has 8kg worth of battery lithium per vehicle. That's 12,000,000 tonnes of lithium. The reserves worldwide are 14,000,000 tonnes (End of Google info) So once the whole world is on EV, we are either reducing cars or pulling from the ocean. Only one of those options is doable by a politician and they will 100% take the easy route. Every single time.
    - Veedrac 4y ago
      We can just find more reserves, no? Reserves have gone from 13m to 22m between 2010 and 2022[1] and I don't know of any reason they'd cap out there. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1253739/lithium-reserves-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1253739/lithium-reserves...
- iinnPP 4y ago
  I have pondered the idea of removing a lot of the cars and how it would happen. Then I started looking into Lithium mining (and how that has to come from water in mass quantities by 2030 if politicians are to succeed of their lofty goals. Politicians, for the most part, fail to do anything well. This will be no exception. So how do they reach the goal? Outlaw ICE vehicles. Slowly but surely you will see less and less cars on the road. The income needed to own a car will go up. Any government incentives will be eaten by increasing prices (as happened with Ford not even a week after a rebate was announced.) Just a guess of course.
woodruffw 4y ago
I think the less favorable (and more accurate) metric would be carbon elisions amortized over productive lifetime: a trainset can last for half a century, while an ordinary consumer in the developed world might go through 4-5 new cars in that period. Making new cars (even and especially EVs) is carbon intensive and should probably be factored in.
- wilg 4y ago
  It's already normalized to emissions per passenger-km, so I don't think the lifetime of the vehicle would skew it much unless it's efficiency changes over it's lifespan. Additionally, someone buying 4 or 5 new electric vehicles is not a problem. Unless they put the old car in a landfill, that will still replace 4 or 5 gas cars on the road as they are resold down the line. The carbon costs of producing them are already factored in!