3 ms·
> It’s much less stupid if you think about it as a way to halt global warming and reduce pollution and noise. s/halt/slow/
by pengaru 4y ago
> It’s much less stupid if you think about it as a way to halt global warming and reduce pollution and noise.
s/halt/slow/
- wilg 4y agoSlowing it is how you get to halting it. These things can run on purely renewable energy, so if we get to a 100% EV fleet it will be relatively easy to go carbon-neutral on vehicle transport.
- giantg2 4y ago"it will be relatively easy to go carbon-neutral on vehicle transport." For the fuel maybe. Probably not as easy on other components.
- wilg 4y agoFor the fuel definitely. But we have to solve the problem for other components anyway. EV batteries in particular are great because they are 99% recyclable, so that's going to be the long term strategy.
- pengaru 4y agoI'm all for EVs, but it's no climate-change fixing panacea.
- wilg 4y agoNo one claimed it was. But vehicles are the largest GHG emitting sector, so zeroing out emissions from it is crucially important. We just have to go sector-by-sector do this. Plus, technology developed for EVs helps stationary grid storage and electrification of other products and industries.
- creeble 4y agoPowering a 100% carbon neutral EV "fleet" would require lots more (solar/wind)+battery or nuclear that is unlikely to be developed as quickly as the consumption.
- wilg 4y agoThat's what's great about electricity! It abstracts the power generation technology. If we need to temporarily use natural gas to power it, for example, we can just do it and still achieve better efficiency than ICE cars. But we're going to have to develop that renewable power infrastructure anyway. And renewables are now cheaper in many cases than polluting alternatives.
- creeble 4y agoCheaper, but not available. So not abstract. So if Jevon's Paradox holds true for transportation as it did for steam power, we may need lots of fossil-fuel electric plants just to meet demand. Maybe that's "temporary", but so was coal.