8 ms·
That’s the worst part of the AI race and “clean” electric cars. Behind the scenes the destruction they cause is more than you can imagine. We think electric ca
by blondie9x 3y ago
That’s the worst part of the AI race and “clean” electric cars. Behind the scenes the destruction they cause is more than you can imagine.
We think electric cars and GPUs are pushing us ahead. But in reality we are driving the wedge in deeper.
I’m afraid where we end up is like James Hansen said about fossil fuels, but relevant in general, with a "different, practically uninhabitable planet" by triggering a "low-end runaway greenhouse effect."
The only way to actually stop the destruction is if we slow down mining and learn to do more with what we have already mined. To make what we already consumed reusable and stop mining altogether if possible. For fossil fuels, and the rare earth minerals destroying fresh water and food supplies and air quality.
- squarepizza 3y agoEVs, while undeniably more efficient, seem very good at abstracting the costs away from the end user. Pair this with autonomy that reduces friction but has its own associated costs and I'm afraid that the increase in use will eclipse the gains in efficiency, leading to a Jevon's Paradox where the overall consumption increases.
- actionfromafar 3y agoThe costs of cars and oil are already thoroughly abstracted away.
- londons_explore 3y ago> abstracting the costs away from the end user. The vast majority of costs are already abstracted away. When you drive to work, do you think about the massive environmental cost of all the concrete and steel that went into building the roads and bridges that you drive over? Yet those costs, which nobody talks about, are of similar scale to the environmental costs of all cars.
- jazzyjackson 3y agoI think that goes to the parent's point: making the individual cars more efficient is not going to make a difference in the big picture. For one, the increase in efficiency has really already been met by an increase in power and performance - even the humble Prius has made an effort at faster 0-60, not to mention the sub-3-second super-SUVs. But if driving a car is cheaper (and more fun) then we are doomed to dedicate more land to asphalt, and all the hidden costs thereof.
- dublinben 3y agoThis is why every serious plan for reducing transportation emissions also includes a significant decrease in Vehicle Miles Traveled. It’s not enough to keep driving everywhere, but in electric cars instead.
- RhodesianHunter 3y agoJevons paradox doesn't make sense in the context of purely competitive products. If it were, the effect would be expected to be the same for gas powered cars unless they were somehow prohibitively more expensive, which they are not.
- slashdev 3y agoIs this satire? With the username, I’m unsure. I don’t know why anyone would mention GPUs and AI in the same context as electric vehicles. Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions. It’s not good for the local environment, but it’s necessary. Recycling and reuse is also a grand idea, you’re right about that. Except for plastics, which never made sense. Electric cars are unequivocally a good thing. Every electric car takes a fossil fuel guzzling car off the road. Once a family has an electric car they tend to use it whenever possible, making the effect even more pronounced. Some people float the ridiculous argument that they emit more greenhouse gases in manufacturing and mining than they save over their lifetime. Firstly, gasoline cars also cost energy to manufacture and gasoline also takes energy to extract and refine and transport. Secondly, electric cars break even within the first few years of use. Even in todays world where the electric grid still has a lot of fossil fuel generation.
- bee_rider 3y agoNot sure they are unequivocally good — maybe if we had the option between electric cars, and no cars, no cars might be preferable. But that is not the world we live in. Among the options we actually have, electric cars seem to be one of the least bad picks.
- walleeee 3y agoIn 30 years we are going to look back at all the "unequivocally good" electric family cars and wish we'd used the materials and energy on civilizational resilience, not to temporarily extend the unsustainable habits of the planet's richest minority Electric vehicles can be a good thing if we also dramatically reduce our consumption of transportation and bring our political systems, lifestyles and economies in harmony with planetary boundaries. Without a corresponding sea change in expectations and way of life, they just dig us deeper into the energy trap.
- actionfromafar 3y agoElectric cars are helping, but maybe not as much one can be lead to believe. The biggest danger about them is possibly that people may believe they are a big step forward. They are an important but rather small step forward. Electric cars will reduce demand for gasoline. Some people say this won't affect how much oil is pumped out of the ground, because we still need the other fractions. That's not exactly the case though - gasoline is effectively now subsidizing the heavier fractions. When that changes, heavier fractions will also be more expensive. How that will affect demand for crude, I'm not equipped to tell. The most interesting things about electric cars may be if they transform how our grid works, from baseload to (much more) spot-market.
- jjoonathan 3y agoI thought the fractions were relatively straightforward to convert to balance demand? I don't really have good intuition for the economics of it though.
- actionfromafar 3y agoTechnology wise, sure. But I can imagine it could take a lot of effort to convert all refineries. And I think it’s much easier to crack heavier fractions than to combine lighter hydrocarbons to heavier?
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoIf I understand correctly, we want more gasoline than the natural fraction in petroleum. So refineries "crack" longer molecules to create shorter ones, increasing the amount of gasoline. I'm not sure if that's the gasoline subsidizing the heavier fractions. It might be the other way around. There would be more heavier fractions available if we didn't crack them, and therefore they'd be cheaper.
- actionfromafar 3y agoThat still requires changes to the refineries, but even so, when the cracking is eventually turned off, the same mechanism remains.