3 ms·

Neither solution is really decarbonized. It is also wrong to say only carbon leaves an ecological imprint. Recycling of batteries will be a huge logistical chal

Neither solution is really decarbonized. It is also wrong to say only carbon leaves an ecological imprint. Recycling of batteries will be a huge logistical challenge or leave a high ecological impact itself. Still, either a vehicle is more or less drives continuously or batteries will be the better alternative. But that is only for that sector.

schiffern 4y ago
Fossil fuel transport is fundamentally carbonized. BEVs are currently about 50% better, but at least it's feasible to achieve full decarbonization. Recycling of batteries is very efficient at >95%[1], and will only get better with time. As for addressing only one sector, welcome to the world of high-complexity problems. Climate change is a "1000 cuts" type, not a "magic bullet" type. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/14/jb-straubels-redwood-materials-is-expanding-into-the-battery-materials-business/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/14/jb-straubels-redwood-mater...
- glenstein 4y ago
  >Fossil fuel transport is fundamentally carbonized. Exactly, and I wish I understood why people thought this was a smart point. EVs are a link in the chain that in and of themselves have no fundamental energy dependence on fossil fuels. They have an incidental reliance on fossil fuels to the extent that electricity is generated from fossil fuels. But they're a piece of the infrastructure puzzle that in and of themselves is fully solved and compatible with decarbonized infrastructure. I would like to think that one goal in advancing public understanding of EVS should be educating people to the point that this particular talking point never gets used ever again.