4 ms·

What Mr. Bean gets wrong about electric cars

necovek 3y ago
While there are clear benefits to electric cars (for instance, their efficiency in converting electric energy to motion), how would someone in the same article claim how battery production will only go down in CO2 footprint and cost, while claiming hydrogen and synfuels are too expensive right now? Don't the same economies of scale apply to them: if they have clear benefits, investing in the tech to produce them will drive the prices down. People were saying the same things about lithium batteries and electric vehicles 10-15 years ago, and yet here we are today. There might be other reasons why hydrogen and synfuels are not viable, but this article does not touch on those, and gives off an emotional + unsubstantiated vibe. My take is that those doing a couple thousand miles per year will be perfectly well served with their existing gasoline powered cars without even affecting the environment much. Urban driving will likely need to move to small electric cars to ensure livable atmosphere in cities (where there is no good enough public transport), and the remaining driving will switch to electric (large mileage users like commercial and long commuters) for cost purposes. Of course, there will be a niche for internal combustion car fans too, but that will similarly not affect ecological footprint much (there is not a lot of driving producing exhaust gases there).
- _hypx 3y ago
  Agreed. This is the generic pro-battery car screed, but now that non-fossil fuel alternatives are becoming viable, this argument is "fighting the last war" so to speak. As the cost of alternative ideas come down and also drop in CO₂ footprint, the question starts to become "why not try something else?" Especially given how expensive and resource intensive batteries are. It is becoming pure ideology to only consider one type of green technology while dismissing everything else. Rather than making yourself look intelligent, you are actually showing that you are stuck in the past by doing that.

While there are clear benefits to electric cars (for instance, their efficiency in converting electric energy to motion), how would someone in the same article claim how battery production will only go down in CO2 footprint and cost, while claiming hydrogen and synfuels are too expensive right now? Don't the same economies of scale apply to them: if they have clear benefits, investing in the tech to produce them will drive the prices down. People were saying the same things about lithium batteries and electric vehicles 10-15 years ago, and yet here we are today. There might be other reasons why hydrogen and synfuels are not viable, but this article does not touch on those, and gives off an emotional + unsubstantiated vibe. My take is that those doing a couple thousand miles per year will be perfectly well served with their existing gasoline powered cars without even affecting the environment much. Urban driving will likely need to move to small electric cars to ensure livable atmosphere in cities (where there is no good enough public transport), and the remaining driving will switch to electric (large mileage users like commercial and long commuters) for cost purposes. Of course, there will be a niche for internal combustion car fans too, but that will similarly not affect ecological footprint much (there is not a lot of driving producing exhaust gases there).

_hypx 3y ago
Agreed. This is the generic pro-battery car screed, but now that non-fossil fuel alternatives are becoming viable, this argument is "fighting the last war" so to speak. As the cost of alternative ideas come down and also drop in CO₂ footprint, the question starts to become "why not try something else?" Especially given how expensive and resource intensive batteries are. It is becoming pure ideology to only consider one type of green technology while dismissing everything else. Rather than making yourself look intelligent, you are actually showing that you are stuck in the past by doing that.