4 ms·

Of course. But how will the manufacturers handle this uncertainty? Seriously, by setting such dates politicians are acting straight up maliciously. If the EVs a

Of course. But how will the manufacturers handle this uncertainty? Seriously, by setting such dates politicians are acting straight up maliciously. If the EVs are so great, let them take over in the natural course.

PoignardAzur 4y ago
This is obviously ignoring that fossil fuel vehicles have strong externalities which aren't paid by the consumer.
- throw009 4y ago
  As do electric vehicles which requires three current grids worth of wires to power them.
  - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
    > This is obviously ignoring that fossil fuel vehicles have strong externalities which aren't paid by the consumer. > As do electric vehicles which requires three current grids worth of wires to power them. Your response doesn't logically match your intended message. It seems like you intend to disagree with the GP, but your response seems to validate the GP's point. > three current grids worth of wires Even if we assume it is true (it likely will not be because of home storage), by definition "3 current grids worth of wires" would be paid for by consumers buying electricity. Consumers buying electric cars are required to buy even more electricity. As such, with electric cars the externality you're point out is gonna be "paid [disproportionately] by the consumer causing it".
    - throw009 4y ago
      This is what a copper mine looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine The electric car owners are not thr ones paying the externalities for it either. You can make the case the externalities are smaller but they still exist.
      - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
        Ah, yes you are right! If we do need to triple the grid's copper, that would indeed result in unpaid externalities because of poor mining practices. Hopefully, the grid doesn't need to triple because of local storage. If it does, hopefully, the recyleability of copper makes the one time cost of mining and refining a smaller externality.
- neverminder 4y ago
  As opposed to EVs that have considerably larger manufacturing carbon footprint compared to ICE cars? Also remind me what is the percentage of clean energy those EVs are consuming?
  - tzs 4y ago
    > As opposed to EVs that have considerably larger manufacturing carbon footprint compared to ICE cars? Irrelevant except perhaps for collector cars. For cars that are actually used the manufacturing differences will be swamped by the operational differences. > Also remind me what is the percentage of clean energy those EVs are consuming? Again irrelevant, because even if in a particular place now not much electricity comes from clean energy as they shift to more and more clean energy that improves all the EVs in service there. The ICEs in service will be just as dirty then as they are now. Also, if you do generate electricity from fossil fuels and use that to power cars it can be cleaner than using that fossil fuel directly to power cars. That's because burning it in the car greatly constrains how much equipment you can use to try to reduce or capture the emissions from that burning, because it all has to be small enough and light enough to include in a car. Burning that fuel instead to power generators that feed the grid doesn't suffer that problem. You can put more elaborate emissions control there than you could on a car.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >Irrelevant except perhaps for collector cars. For cars that are actually used the manufacturing differences will be swamped by the operational differences. You'd be surprised. This electricity needs to be generated, and it will hardly be clean for decades. It also needs to be stored in car batteries. And if the energy is "green", in grid "batteries" - plus all the work needed to support the green energy generation, solar panels, huge grid changes, etc. Both of which are nowhere near available, and it's not even certain they can be supported if EVs go to 100% of cars, neither from a manufacturing capacity wise, nor materials wise. And those need to be disposed too. And they'll need replacement during the car's life.

PoignardAzur 4y ago

This is obviously ignoring that fossil fuel vehicles have strong externalities which aren't paid by the consumer.

throw009 4y ago
As do electric vehicles which requires three current grids worth of wires to power them.
- yazaddaruvala 4y ago
  > This is obviously ignoring that fossil fuel vehicles have strong externalities which aren't paid by the consumer. > As do electric vehicles which requires three current grids worth of wires to power them. Your response doesn't logically match your intended message. It seems like you intend to disagree with the GP, but your response seems to validate the GP's point. > three current grids worth of wires Even if we assume it is true (it likely will not be because of home storage), by definition "3 current grids worth of wires" would be paid for by consumers buying electricity. Consumers buying electric cars are required to buy even more electricity. As such, with electric cars the externality you're point out is gonna be "paid [disproportionately] by the consumer causing it".
  - throw009 4y ago
    This is what a copper mine looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine The electric car owners are not thr ones paying the externalities for it either. You can make the case the externalities are smaller but they still exist.
    - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
      Ah, yes you are right! If we do need to triple the grid's copper, that would indeed result in unpaid externalities because of poor mining practices. Hopefully, the grid doesn't need to triple because of local storage. If it does, hopefully, the recyleability of copper makes the one time cost of mining and refining a smaller externality.
neverminder 4y ago
As opposed to EVs that have considerably larger manufacturing carbon footprint compared to ICE cars? Also remind me what is the percentage of clean energy those EVs are consuming?
- tzs 4y ago
  > As opposed to EVs that have considerably larger manufacturing carbon footprint compared to ICE cars? Irrelevant except perhaps for collector cars. For cars that are actually used the manufacturing differences will be swamped by the operational differences. > Also remind me what is the percentage of clean energy those EVs are consuming? Again irrelevant, because even if in a particular place now not much electricity comes from clean energy as they shift to more and more clean energy that improves all the EVs in service there. The ICEs in service will be just as dirty then as they are now. Also, if you do generate electricity from fossil fuels and use that to power cars it can be cleaner than using that fossil fuel directly to power cars. That's because burning it in the car greatly constrains how much equipment you can use to try to reduce or capture the emissions from that burning, because it all has to be small enough and light enough to include in a car. Burning that fuel instead to power generators that feed the grid doesn't suffer that problem. You can put more elaborate emissions control there than you could on a car.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >Irrelevant except perhaps for collector cars. For cars that are actually used the manufacturing differences will be swamped by the operational differences. You'd be surprised. This electricity needs to be generated, and it will hardly be clean for decades. It also needs to be stored in car batteries. And if the energy is "green", in grid "batteries" - plus all the work needed to support the green energy generation, solar panels, huge grid changes, etc. Both of which are nowhere near available, and it's not even certain they can be supported if EVs go to 100% of cars, neither from a manufacturing capacity wise, nor materials wise. And those need to be disposed too. And they'll need replacement during the car's life.