4 ms·

> It isn't contrarianism to point out that a solution is not the solution everyone thinks it is. Literally nobody thinks that EV's will reduce microplastics.

> It isn't contrarianism to point out that a solution is not the solution everyone thinks it is. Literally nobody thinks that EV's will reduce microplastics. What are you even talking about? EV's have the potential to dramatically reduce our reliance on gasoline. Current EV technology is far from perfect, but do you think people will just stop having personal transportation? Do you think it's better to keep using gasoline cars forever? So you agree that some kind of non-gasoline personal vehicle is likely to be dominant for some time as a method of personal transportation, unless you are just ignoring reality completely or think that people will magically change how they live in even more fundamental ways without incentives to do so, which is magical thinking. So EVs are inevitable, since there is no other credible alternative to gasoline personal vehicles that is even proposed, and EVs are starting to displace gas vehicles in significant numbers. So keep shouting as much as you like about how we need to 'stop normalizing the idea of a car' but just realize that less than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the world will even bother to listen to it, and in the meantime we are likely to end up building several billion electric cars before another alternative comes around. If you want to change the world, develop the technology that makes it make sense to act the way you want people to act, because nothing else will persuade anybody.

bmitc 3y ago
> Literally nobody thinks that EV's will reduce microplastics. What are you even talking about? Not that, for starters. Is there data that proves inconclusively that electric vehicles AND the new infrastructure and mining and every other systematic thing that comes along with them and doesn't currently exist is actually (not just hopes and dreams) less impactful on the environment? Because as far as I can tell, your comment relies on that, and I haven't seen that data. I could care less about holding on to gas-guzzling cars. I would just like to understand things better before jumping headlong into a "solution" that may or may not be any better. And there are massive incentives for companies to jump into EVs, so there is a lot of conflict of interest with EVs. Can corporations and investors be trusted when they stand to make a fortune? Again, my point is to reach an understanding. I do not currently understand why EVs are some bastion of hope when it comes to cars. The best data that I have seen does not account for disposal of batteries nor the mining, long term maintenance and upkeep and continual use of EVs, infrastructure, etc. when it comes to EVs. And if they are better, then where is the crossover point when all this is considered? Is it 10 years? 50 years? And yes, I do think re-enforcing the car is not a good idea. You can think it's unrealistic, and sure, in the short term it probably is. But we shouldn't just throw our hands up and reach for a new "solution" that just brings new problems.
- TheBigSalad 3y ago
  It is a fact that EVs are better for the environment and will be even more better once certain infrastructure is built out. There's no reason to shit on an improvement just because it's not a cure. The data is a quick search away if you're actually interested.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    Well, I have looked, so if you don't mind pointing to data that addresses what I mentioned then that would be appreciated. It is hard to find, but what I have found is that EVs cross over, in terms of emissions, around 6-24 months into ownership over ICE vehicles. This accounts for manufacturing to use. As far as I could tell, it does not take into account the new mining required, the new manufacturing centers, the new infrastructure, battery disposal, end of life scenarios, etc. Basically, what I've already said. These are systems. Yes, in isolation EVs are better than ICEs. As you start to broaden the viewpoint, I think things get a loss less definitive such that the wins become a lot less impactful. Being honest, I think the main reason that EVs have so much hype is that because people plan on making a lot of money from the lithium and other mines and selling the EVs.
    - ltbarcly3 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - bmitc 3y ago
        I'm not really sure what you mean. What information from what sources? What is dubious? I didn't quote anything and simply stated my understanding. I am not aware of the 6-24 month cross over point being so-called "FUD". I don't think I have read this report directly before, but I just found Volvo's 50 page report (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-assets/intl/applications/dotcom/pdf/c40/volvo-c40-recharge-lca-report.pdf https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-assets/int...). On page 6, it effectively confirms what I just stated. With wind power recharging batteries, EVs cross over ICE at 49,000km. With EU-28 mix at 77,000km. With standard global electricity mixed power sources at 110,000km. Given I've had my car since 2015 and barely have 50,000 miles on it, that means that I would need to drive an EV for at least ten years before it crosses over an ICE car for CO2 emissions, according to Volvo's data. Now, I realize that my driving mileage is probably well under average, but it is my personal usage. (Of course, the data has +/- components depending on various specifics, but the idea is there.) So that effectively confirms (and is actually worse than) what I stated above. Everything else I am merely asking about because I haven't seen the data that says one way or the other. You and the other commenter claim there's the magic data out there if I "just search for it", while everything I've stated is just oil propaganda. It's just dumb that if you even ask for data regarding EVs, you get labeled an oil person, when such a claim, for myself, could not be further from the truth. The Volvo report seems pretty good, so I guess I'll read it while missing out on your and the other commenters' magic data unless you decide to materialize it. Although, it goes without saying that Volvo stands to make money from this, so there is a conflict of interest for sure, at least for this particular report. But it seems relatively accurate to my read so far.

bmitc 3y ago

> Literally nobody thinks that EV's will reduce microplastics. What are you even talking about? Not that, for starters. Is there data that proves inconclusively that electric vehicles AND the new infrastructure and mining and every other systematic thing that comes along with them and doesn't currently exist is actually (not just hopes and dreams) less impactful on the environment? Because as far as I can tell, your comment relies on that, and I haven't seen that data. I could care less about holding on to gas-guzzling cars. I would just like to understand things better before jumping headlong into a "solution" that may or may not be any better. And there are massive incentives for companies to jump into EVs, so there is a lot of conflict of interest with EVs. Can corporations and investors be trusted when they stand to make a fortune? Again, my point is to reach an understanding. I do not currently understand why EVs are some bastion of hope when it comes to cars. The best data that I have seen does not account for disposal of batteries nor the mining, long term maintenance and upkeep and continual use of EVs, infrastructure, etc. when it comes to EVs. And if they are better, then where is the crossover point when all this is considered? Is it 10 years? 50 years? And yes, I do think re-enforcing the car is not a good idea. You can think it's unrealistic, and sure, in the short term it probably is. But we shouldn't just throw our hands up and reach for a new "solution" that just brings new problems.

TheBigSalad 3y ago
It is a fact that EVs are better for the environment and will be even more better once certain infrastructure is built out. There's no reason to shit on an improvement just because it's not a cure. The data is a quick search away if you're actually interested.
- bmitc 3y ago
  Well, I have looked, so if you don't mind pointing to data that addresses what I mentioned then that would be appreciated. It is hard to find, but what I have found is that EVs cross over, in terms of emissions, around 6-24 months into ownership over ICE vehicles. This accounts for manufacturing to use. As far as I could tell, it does not take into account the new mining required, the new manufacturing centers, the new infrastructure, battery disposal, end of life scenarios, etc. Basically, what I've already said. These are systems. Yes, in isolation EVs are better than ICEs. As you start to broaden the viewpoint, I think things get a loss less definitive such that the wins become a lot less impactful. Being honest, I think the main reason that EVs have so much hype is that because people plan on making a lot of money from the lithium and other mines and selling the EVs.
  - ltbarcly3 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - bmitc 3y ago
      I'm not really sure what you mean. What information from what sources? What is dubious? I didn't quote anything and simply stated my understanding. I am not aware of the 6-24 month cross over point being so-called "FUD". I don't think I have read this report directly before, but I just found Volvo's 50 page report (https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-assets/intl/applications/dotcom/pdf/c40/volvo-c40-recharge-lca-report.pdf https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-assets/int...). On page 6, it effectively confirms what I just stated. With wind power recharging batteries, EVs cross over ICE at 49,000km. With EU-28 mix at 77,000km. With standard global electricity mixed power sources at 110,000km. Given I've had my car since 2015 and barely have 50,000 miles on it, that means that I would need to drive an EV for at least ten years before it crosses over an ICE car for CO2 emissions, according to Volvo's data. Now, I realize that my driving mileage is probably well under average, but it is my personal usage. (Of course, the data has +/- components depending on various specifics, but the idea is there.) So that effectively confirms (and is actually worse than) what I stated above. Everything else I am merely asking about because I haven't seen the data that says one way or the other. You and the other commenter claim there's the magic data out there if I "just search for it", while everything I've stated is just oil propaganda. It's just dumb that if you even ask for data regarding EVs, you get labeled an oil person, when such a claim, for myself, could not be further from the truth. The Volvo report seems pretty good, so I guess I'll read it while missing out on your and the other commenters' magic data unless you decide to materialize it. Although, it goes without saying that Volvo stands to make money from this, so there is a conflict of interest for sure, at least for this particular report. But it seems relatively accurate to my read so far.