14 ms·
What If All the Gasoline Cars Became Electric Vehicles?
- wuliwong 3y ago99 comments and only 22 points? I also noticed this post drop from the front page #18 to somewhere like 500 in an instant. I guess some mod decided to tank this post. Why?
- phone8675309 3y agoHow much carbon would be released into the atmosphere if all of those cars were made at the same time, and what's the break even point there?
- wuliwong 3y agoThat's not really the point I was trying to make. I was just trying to say "what if" we had the climate scientist's wish and all gas car were magically EVs. Would that actually be better from an emissions perspective?
- nerdo 3y agoSetting aside the mid-2000s-programming-interview-riddle blog post, is CO2 even the problem wrt automotive air pollution?: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyre...
- pge 3y agoFor mitigating climate change, reducing GHGs (in this case CO2) is the most important factor. If you are looking instead at air pollution, ie particulate matter, then tires are a larger contributor than exhaust, and EVs due to weight are often worse than ICE cars.
- nerdo 3y agoIt's 2030, sales of gasoline-powered passenger cars have been banned in California because of their immeasurable impact on the global climate. You've been tasked with replacing them: 1. Make cars, but powered by electric batteries! Don't mind me, just driving my 2000 lbs of batteries to the store and back! If I hit someone they'll suffer grave injury, I require monopoly access to city roadways, a parking lot that dwarfs the land use of the building I'm visiting, direct regular contact with the government for licensing, and a long list of negative externalities. Check it out though, less CO2 maybe? 2. Anything else?
- revscat 3y ago2. Update zoning laws to favor foot and bike traffic rather than passenger cars 3. Increase availability and production of electric bikes 4. I don't really care how we get there. We do not have a choice in the matter.
- nerdo 3y agoWhat happened to mass transit?
- pmg102 3y agoRight so these are orthogonal problems. We could solve the transport element of carbon emissions while solve none of the other problems of personal vehicular transport. Or we could solve multiple of those problems. But it makes no sense to critique a solution to problem A by saying it is not ALSO a solution to problem B.
- jayd16 3y agoIs this really that significant? Seems like a model 3 and 3 series bmw weigh about the same.
- pmg102 3y agoIt's a bigger factor for small cars than for large ones, naturally. A Peugeot e208 EV weighs ~50% more than an ICE Peugeot 208 (1560 kg Vs 1065 kg).
- lkbm 3y agoI believe regenerative braking does help with some PM2.5. Tires are still an issue (perhaps worse than normal due to higher weight), but less brake pads friction is a big deal as well.
- pmg102 3y agoCO2 emissions definitely are a problem. Because carbon in the atmosphere causes climate impacts globally. Switching an ICE car to an EV car reduces carbon emissions significantly, perhaps by a factor of 2x to 5x. Particulate emissions are a separate problem. A local one but also important. Poor air quality contributes to diseases and deaths and EVs don't solve this one completely, although they do 1. reduce tailpipe particulate emissions (especially conpared to diesels) and 2. Use regenerative "engine braking" meaning less particulates from brake pad wear. However they still have tyre wear and that may be rather worse than an ICE car partly due to weight and partly due to immediate delivery of high torque to the drivetrain.
- trgn 3y agoOne can dream. Cities would be so much more quiet. Less stinky. Less trashed up by gas stations.
- cglace 3y agoProbably replaced by fast charging stations?
- barbazoo 3y ago> more quiet. Less stinky. Less trashed up by gas stations. They are less noisy, less stinky and much smaller, they blend in much better with existing infrastructure e.g. parking spots, driveways.
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoAnd usually they are combined with existing parking spots.
- trgn 3y agoSure. It's better than a gas station, which pollute the soil for decades, and they really degrade the experience for the neighbors (constant roaring in/out of cars/trucks/...).
- jayd16 3y agoYou can put those in parking spaces with essentially no impact to footprint, though.
- natch 3y agoAnd at-home plugs for some. I don’t miss the aromas and the fake-story panhandlers.
- ericmay 3y agoBetter yet, replace most of the car traffic with walking and bikes and trams. I'm continually bewildered at the additive approach to cars versus a much better subtractive approach. Though I guess cars are more easy to measure for GDP. What's the GDP contribution of a sidewalk? Hard to relate that directly to new businesses and such.
- Eavolution 3y agoIs 24mpg really correct? I'm in Europe driving a small hatchback and I'd typically get around 45-50mpg (UK, I know American mpg is lower, but it wouldn't be halving the figure!). Depending on how I drive, that can be up to about 60mpg, which is where the car definitely tops out. 24mpg to me seems like madness!
- shortcrct 3y agoIt would appear that the Ford F-150, the most popular car in America, has an average MPG of 23 mpg [0], so there's possibly some accuracy here. I do understand that's a very American-centric view, but its one explanation. [0]: https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150 https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150
- themaninthedark 3y agoAmerican driver here, I don't know about others but my small hatchback gets between 30 and 35 mpg. If I am driving on the highway, I can get up to 37 ~ 40 mpg depending on what speeds I use and how hilly it is. NE Georgia.
- kodt 3y agoSmaller cars and diesels are more common in Europe, which probably helps statistically. But I imagine the method of testing mpg between Europe and the EPA in the US could be different and is likely contributing to some of the discrepancy. Also didn't VW get caught lying about their numbers?
- Eavolution 3y agoI thought VW lied about emissions not miles to the gallon, and the numbers I've said are what my dashboard shows for avg consumption when I'm driving, they ain't the testing numbers (which do tend to be ridiculously high)
- nawgz 3y ago24mpg seems right. I drive a pretty medium sized car - Subaru Outback - and I pulled 25.5mpg on a big road trip. My right foot is a little heavy. Trucks and the fat SUVs that are super popular here get astronomically bad fuel mileage. Think low 10s MPG. Even worse when towing stuff. Small cars do alright but are decreasing in popularity. Looking around the parking lots I frequent, where everyone has new vehicles, it's insane. All SUVs. Even when it's dominated by "smaller" SUVs like Mazda CX-5, Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Lexus RX370... Those are still big boys.
- labster 3y agoElectric cars do emit particulate matter from their tires, a greater amount than ICE vehicles do because they’re heavier. The PM is also a microplasic (rubber). But obviously near zero COx/NOx/SOx. Imagine if climate change was a myth, and the only thing we got from all this effort was air that was safe to breathe. Wouldn’t that still be worth it?
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoYou're assuming the average person would rather have breathable air than another kitchen appliance from China that they won't even use, which is a wild stretch of the imagination from the people I know.
- trgn 3y ago> Imagine if climate change was a myth, and the only thing we got from all this effort was air that was safe to breathe. Wouldn’t that still be worth it? Such a great sentiment! ICE cars don't only contribute to global warming, they pollute the _local_ environment. And not just the emissions, noise too. Neighbor bought a hybrid. In the mornings, they zoom away to work. Before, they'd wake me up with the rumble of the einge. Nothing to do with global warming, but a very real increase in quality of life.
- labster 3y agoI think you’re underestimating atmospheric transport. NOx from China makes up a large portion of the pollutant in California, more than enough to offset local reductions over the past couple decades. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094/rise-in-smog-in-western-u-s-is-blamed-on-asias-air-pollution https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094...
- trgn 3y agothanks for the link. Is the idea that EV-manufacturing would increase pollution in China, thus increasing pollution in US?
- abdullahkhalids 3y agoTo put into context Gasoline cars emissions = 3e9 lbs = 1360777110 metric tons This implies USA per capita emissions from cars = 4 metric tons. Current total USA per capita emissions is 14.86 tons. So reducing the car emissions by 75% (by switching to EV) will take total per capita emissions down to 11.8 tons. I believe the acceptable level of per capita emissions for the 1.5C target is 2.3 tons [1]. [1] https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-inequality-in-2030-per-capita-consumption-emissions-and-the-15c-goal-621305/ https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-inequalit...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- glitchc 3y agoThank you, this makes more sense. It highlights the fact that switching everyone to driving EVs is not enough to counter climate change. We need to think about trucks too. In fact, switching all trucks to EVs is likely to have a bigger impact on our emissions targets. Ergo we should focus our energies here first.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago> Ergo we should focus our energies here first. No, we're out of time. We need to focus our energies on everything significant. That's electricity generation, transportation (both personal and commercial), heating and agriculture. Getting electricity to ~90% carbon free, switching heating from fossil fuels to heat pumps and switching personal transport to EV's are unique in that they are win-win -- they are cheaper than fossil fuels in the long run.
- Retric 3y agoTrucks are a poor fit for pure EV’s due to weight limitations and their usage patterns. Regenerative breaking really doesn’t hemp them much which is why gas electric hybrids never caught on. We’re much better off transferring large trucks to either in road charging or trains.
- Retric 3y ago
- Melting_Harps 3y agoAs a thought experiment? We will have polluted the Earth from all the mining and haphazard disposal processes that are common where these rare earths are, and will have done little to nothing about over all GHG release as policy in places like California have de-incentivized residential solar to prop up the profits of the utilities and most charging will likely be done using carbon based sources from an archaic grid. Believe me when i say this, I worked for VW during diesel-gate and thought the solution was EV being embraced by the largest auto manufacturer: VAG. But the reality it's far more complex than that: we have to enforce as much WFH as possible, in conjunction with realizing we must have a conglomerate of energy sources including fossil fuels, but also see that what we have been doing is entirely unsustainable and not even desirable in terms of large scale transportation and logistics. it doesn't even fit the mould since younger millennials and Gen Z do not want nor can they afford cars; so who is going to buy these things after it's main demographic has been exhausted? I'll save you a click: Conclusion I predict that if all gasoline vehicles were replaced by EVs we would see total C02 produced drop from 3 trillion lbs per year to 810.1 billion lbs per year, a 73.0% decrease. Comparing this result using data from [8] we see a 77.9% decrease predicted. We consider this validation for such a simplistic, high level approximation with the goal of being understandable to people outside of academia. We performed a separate calculation using 24.2 mpg for the fuel economy for gas powered vehicles in the U.S. and calculated the total annual emission to be 3.3 trillion lbs. This value lands in between the previous two methods of calculating total annual gas emissions. The predicted decrease in emissions is compelling but it is still important to expand on these of calculations to include more environmental effects that distinguish the impact of these two types of vehicles. The type of impact is most likely not completely characterized by carbon emissions alone
- hwillis 3y ago> haphazard disposal processes that are common where these rare earths are Which rare earths are those? Because there's only one rare earth in motors and zero in batteries. There are rare earths in most electronics, but not really any more in EVs than in any other car. The rare earth in motors -and not even in all motors- is neodymium, which is the second most common. There are huge deposits worldwide and *the US gets over 85% of its REE domestically.*
- woliveirajr 3y agoDiesel cars? Etanol cars (and the sugar price would skyrocket) Some ugly accidents with batteries catching fire? Prices would increase as more batteries are needed (so, increasing the price of some goods)? Solar power generation would increase and become widespread, and prices would decrease as competition would become higher?
- glitchc 3y agoAny calculation on cars that does not factor in commercial trucks is flawed. Over the past two decades, we have seen an enormous increase in commercial freight traffic. The last numbers I remember from [1] estimated that cars account for 40% of tailpipe emissions, whereas trucks account for ~60%, and this was estimate from before the pandemic. I am certain the ratio is more skewed in favour of trucks now. To the point: 73% of what exactly? 80% of total emissions? 40%? 10%? Given the externalities, it may mean the difference between worthwhile or irrelevant. [1] Sustainable Energy: Without The Hot Air: https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/
- wuliwong 3y agoHow is it flawed? I state that I am doing the calculation for cars. How can not including trucks be a flaw in calculating the value for cars? >To the point: 73% of what exactly? 80% of total emissions? 40%? 10%? I do not understand what you are asking. What are all these percentages? The number I calculated was an estimate of the decrease in carbon emissions if you replaced all gas cars with EVs in the US.
- ars 3y agoThis analysis is deeply flawed because of that. They include vans and light trucks in the car numbers, but the electric vehicle are all passenger. To do this correctly they simply need to use the average MPG for a passenger car. That's it - from just that you can do all the math, you don't need the total fuel consumption in the US.
- wuliwong 3y agoI do that calculation in the article. >We can also use 24.2 mpg as the average fuel economy for a gas powered vehicle in the U.S. [10] to expand on our approach, slightly. Using this value we find a slightly largely value for total gallons of gasoline burned per year of 163 billion. That is a good point about passenger EVs vs vans and light trucks. I'm not sure if it makes the analysis "deeply flawed" as it would proceed the same way just possibly switching the actual number used in one place.
- downWidOutaFite 3y agoThis is misleading if you don't add in the CO2 required to manufacture 282 million electric cars.
- jayd16 3y agoAlright, but remove the equivalent when you stop making ICE cars.
- wuliwong 3y agoIt isn't misleading. I state this in the first paragraph. > I ignore the potentially, important environmental impact of the manufacturing processes of the two types of vehicles. And in the second paragraph I discuss it further. >This is a naive and simplistic approach but it is a starting point and allows us to highlight this very important aspect of the topic. Furthermore, these values are still relevant in more complex calculations which take into account other factors like manufacturing, maintenance, longevity, etc
- RetroTechie 3y agoManufacture of ICE cars requires energy just like manufacture of EVs. That comparison is essentially manufacture of batteries + electric motors vs. manufacture of gas tank + IC engine + mechanical drivetrain like gearbox. Energy required for manufacture does not necessarily imply CO2 emissions. Could be renewable or nuclear powered car factory. Raw materials is a different matter of course. Lithium vs. steel (mostly). Driving around: electric power vs. inefficient, polluting & noisy ICE. So EVs for the win there. :-)
- constantcrying 3y agoMeaningless question. You can not replace gasoline cars with EVs using current technology.
- wuliwong 3y agoBTW, thanks for all the feedback! I am not some climate scientist or anything, I've just wondered about this question and started putting down notes and decided to make a little capsule about it. It has actually evolved a lot already, so certainly feedback from this post will definitely get incorporated.
- jbraithwaite 3y agoDoes the OPs math check out? > 282,000,000 vehicles * 14,000 miles/(year vehicle) * 241.4 Wh/mile * 0.85 lbs C02/kWh = 810.1 billion lbs of C02/year Aren’t Wh and kWh being conflated in this calculation?
- wuliwong 3y agoI will change it all to be Wh or kWh. It is unnecessarily confusing. But I do believe the math does work. Thanks for taking a look! Would love to have confirmation from someone else that I didn't do something stupid.
- fridental 3y agoThis is a typical green propaganda dumbass calculation . You assume that people drive BEV as often and as far as they drive ICE. They don't. You assume people always charge BEV from the grid. People can also use solar panels. You assume gasoline forever has to be fossil. It does not need to be. You forget the carbon footprint of manufacturing of either kind of cars. You assume all people can afford buying new cars. They don't. You assume there will be as big second hand market for BEV and it is now for ICE. It won't be, because of the battery degradation. You assume that current grid can handle simultaneous loading of all BEV. It can't, and you don't include the carbon footprint of grid extension and increase of the generation power in your calculation. And last but now least, a typical green propaganda trick, you are only calculating one variable and ignoring negative effects in another variables: - people waste more time waiting for charging - people forced to switch to inferious means of transportation - people reducing their leisure travels - a two-class mobility with the lower class of poor people living in apartments without own charging possibility who cannot afford a BEV or are forced spending hours per day charging at public stations, and the higher class of home owners with solar panels, charging their cars for free - higher prices for taxi, delivery services (and therefore all retail prices), facility management, mobile nurses, construction worker and other people who drive more miles per day as one over-night charge can give. - special service vehicles like firefighting trucks, police cars, military vehicles, super-heavy trucks etc. cannot use fragile battery energy only, and need to use gasoline, which becomes very expensive and hard to get, if 99% of other cars are BEV and so all gas stations are closed. So you should either stop publishing shit or invest a lot more time in your calculation.
- wuliwong 3y agoI couldn't be further from a pusher of "green propaganda." I just thought I'd go after the lowest hanging fruit, like if EVs didn't even lower emissions when ignoring everything else, then it's a slam dunk. But after doing this rough first pass at the calculation, EVs at least seem to pass that test. The thing is, I may not include everything but you can easily see how I came to my conclusion. That was a large motivation for this. To actually put out easily accessible numbers and have a discussion. It sucks that you can't present your critique in a reasonable manner but I appreciate you commenting.
- micah94 3y agoIs there enough lithium in the ground to make enough batteries for all these cars?
- hwillis 3y agoYes, absolutely. There's almost as much lithium as lead, and 10x as much lead in an ICE car battery than an EV lithium battery.