7 ms·

> The world is on an "unstoppable" shift towards renewable energy but the phase down of fossil fuels is not happening quickly enough, a new report says. I woul

by bArray 3y ago

> The world is on an "unstoppable" shift towards renewable energy but the phase down of fossil fuels is not happening quickly enough, a new report says. I would not be making such claims with a global recession and wars increasingly prevalent. A lot of legislation around clean energy may be pushed aside for economic or security purposes. > But it warned that emissions were still too high to prevent temperatures rising above a key threshold of 1.5C. What makes 1.5C key? Why not 2C [1]? And is this normalised for background rise vs actual rise? The earth's temperature has risen fast in the past too [2]. > The report said the growth in clean energy and technologies was "impressive". In 2020, one in 25 cars sold was electric. Just three years later this number has risen to one in five. Vehicle emissions are: (manufacturing + running) / years_of_service By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim and they also have a higher emissions for manufacturing. They are also only as environmentally friendly as the energy generation which is continuously under threat and very difficult to scale without significant investment. That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual. This is where we make big changes quickly [3]. The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. This would force Countries like China to clean up their act and stop Countries outsourcing their carbon emissions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target [2] https://www.science.org/content/article/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity https://www.science.org/content/article/500-million-year-sur... [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cruise-ships-europe-emissions-pollution-b2358009.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cruise-...

Propelloni 3y ago
> I would not be making such claims with a global recession and wars increasingly prevalent. A lot of legislation around clean energy may be pushed aside for economic or security purposes. The economics of renewables are favorable in comparison to fossil fuels, even when you remove all subsidies. What makes them appear more expensive today is that the infrastructure for fossil energy carriers is already there, the one for renewables is often just being built. Obviously there is a tipping point somewhere in the future. Unfortunatly, time is the one thing we don't have. > What makes 1.5C key? Why not 2C [1]? And is this normalised for background rise vs actual rise? The Wikipedia link you provided alludes to the reasoning why 1.5 °C are key. The article also links to a longer piece by the IPC explaining the reasoning. > The earth's temperature has risen fast in the past too [2]. True, the changes in temperature earth has experienced over the last 500 millions years are vastly larger than 2 °C. Only 400 millions years ago oceans were hot baths with a thriving ecosphere! From this vantage point the "there is no planet B" slogan seems less clever, agreed. Climate change will not end earth or nature in general, both will be fine. It will just end the living conditions in which humanity can thrive or even survive. > By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim and they also have a higher emissions for manufacturing. There are 10-year old EV on the road today. Their batteries are still working. Even so, recycling batteries is possible and on the verge of economic feasibility. There are numerous service providers and some say there is going to be big money in it. According to Argonne's GREET model the break-point, where an EV shows a smaller overall environmental footprint versus an ICEV, is somewhere around the 20000km mark [1][5]. The environmental damage caused by an ICEV over its lifetime therefore exceeds the damage caused by an EV and it becomes worse the longer the ICEV runs. Maybe cars in general are just not the ideal solution if reducing environmental damage is the priority? I don't know. Anyhow, considering that driving ICE cars is not banned anywhere, you can go this route. Some nations have banned admitting new ICEs, but that is not the same. > They are also only as environmentally friendly as the energy generation which is continuously under threat and very difficult to scale without significant investment. That is actually a strength of EV. Any improvement in electricty generation and distribution is immediatly applicable to EV. And it is not hard, only expensive in terms of money. But drilling oil wells, building nuclear power plants, or coal mines is also expensive in terms of money, so what? I do not understand the remark concerning threats. How is renewable energy any more threatened than fossil fuels? > That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual. This is where we make big changes quickly [3]. The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. This is a worthwhile target. But 1) why only do one or the other if we can do both? And 2) shipping may be causing significant damage, but there are relativly few ships around (around 100000 [2]). You get scaling effects far beyond the effect of more environmental friendly shipping when you tackle the billion+ cars on this planet, too [3]. > Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. This would force Countries like China to clean up their act and stop Countries outsourcing their carbon emissions. That's a good idea! Let's see how the CBAM works out. It goes into effect in January 2024. [4] [1] https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet [2] https://unctad.org/publication/handbook-statistics-2022 https://unctad.org/publication/handbook-statistics-2022 [3] https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world/ https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-the... [4] https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme... [5] Found this later: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d...
tribaal 3y ago
Battery manufacturing emissions are dwarfed by lifetime emissions of a gasoline powered car, according to the EPA. They do about double the emissions for manufacturing, but that's not all that much. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths This doesn't take away the main point of your comment of course, you're right that keeping a vehicle longer is the most impactful decision.
- graemep 3y ago
  I drive a small car approx 3000 miles a year. Is it true for me? Almost all the claims in your link are qualified with the word "typical"
  - cinntaile 3y ago
    Surely you can input the numbers yourself and find out? Just use the GREET model that is mentioned there, it exists as an Excel spreadsheet.
themoose8 3y ago
2C is criticized as insufficient, because even a warming of two degrees will have serious consequences for humans and the environment, as demonstrated in particular by the IPCC Special Report on the consequences of a global warming of 1.5C [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_%C2%B0C https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_War...
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  This is actually spelled out in the first paragraph of the link they provided, which makes me wonder why they linked to it in the first place.
realusername 3y ago
> By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim and they also have a higher emissions for manufacturing Well no, the emissions threshold between both types of cars is only around 35k km on the lifetime of the vehicle. So unless you are retired and only going once per month to the nearby supermarket until you decommission the car, the most environmental friendly in most common scenarios is to get rid of the petrol car in favor of an electric one. Part of the reason behind these results is the very high polluting petrol infrastructure and the other part is the very low efficiency of petrol cars at around 35% which certainly doesn't help.
- Tade0 3y ago
  I was originally planning to switch to an EV in 2027, but during the past three years I've been doing less than 6k km annually. I still fire it up twice a month to do a weekend trip to places without public transport infrastructure, but that's it. And this is the sort of edge case where it makes more sense to keep the fossil car - not your average daily user who racks up more miles annually than I do in three years. My hope is that in the future I will be able to convert it to fully electric, since it's a hybrid.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/ev-fossil-cars-climate https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/ev-fossil-cars-cli... Has graphs and data to further illustrate your point on EVs vs continued use of an ICE. > Buying a new EV will often result in lower emissions compared to buying a second-hand petrol car unless you only plan to drive it for a year or two, or you’re driving very little.
- bArray 3y ago
  Please see another comment (don't want to duplicate the comments on HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960
bryanlarsen 3y ago
> By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. That is not true. The breakeven point vis-a-vis carbon emissions is 2 years, assuming the average milage of 13,500 miles. An EV is better than an equivalent new gasoline car if it drives at least 13,500 miles before being scrapped. A new EV is better than an equivalent used gasoline car if it drives at least 27,000 more miles before being scrapped. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/04/new-ev-vs-old-beater-which-is-better-for-the-environment/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/04/new-ev-vs-old-beater-wh... > I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim There are lots of >10 year old Leafs and Model S's on the road. And Leaf is the worst case scenario. Without temperature management they wear out a lot quicker than every other car battery does. And remember that used batteries don't get thrown out, they generally get repurposed into stationary storage. They can be recycled but generally aren't because they're too useful as is.
- bArray 3y ago
  From the article: > The idea is right up there with the myth that the United States is powered almost entirely by coal and that EVs are thus worse polluters than gas engines. The reality is that coal makes up about 20 to 22 percent of the national power grid. Coal is not the only problem. Power stations can also use some forms of oil, gas (whether they call it green or not, is still a pollutant), etc. Building the infrastructure for green energy itself has a carbon footprint that takes a while to pay off. Secondly, in the Reuters article it assumes the comparison vehicle is brand new, and starts with a carbon offset: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d... Under the assumption you already have the Toyota, and the question is "should I scrap my Toyota to buy an electric car", and the electricity is generated from 20% coal (not including other carbon sources), the answer is simply no - keep driving your old car. > There are lots of >10 year old Leafs and Model S's on the road. And Leaf is the worst case scenario. Without temperature management they wear out a lot quicker than every other car battery does. And remember that used batteries don't get thrown out, they generally get repurposed into stationary storage. They can be recycled but generally aren't because they're too useful as is. I think the Nissan Leaf has survivor bias - it's one electric car that was successful, plus all the ones with failed batteries are no longer on the road, you only see the good ones still driving. What's really important though is the remaining capacity. An EV that claims 500 miles that can only do 200 miles after some years will start to become a hindrance. As the capacity of the battery drops, I imagine the internal resistance of the battery increases and more of that energy gets converted to heat. Put simply, the EV gets less efficient as time goes on. Unfortunately we don't really have good numbers for this yet.
blitzar 3y ago
With a global recession and wars increasingly prevalent, a lot of legislation around clean energy may be required for economic and security purposes.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Indeed. Does your country import fossil fuels? Then you're at the mercy of global energy prices. Whereas renewables lock in the purchase of energy over 20+ years with a big upfront payment. Ironically the rise in interest rates may be the worst factor affecting the transition.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    If there is local resistance against any new generation sites, storage and transmission, then renewables will be difficult to get into place while old stuff can still work - never underestimate the resistance to change.
zpeti 3y ago
> This would force Countries like China to clean up their act and stop Countries outsourcing their carbon emissions. It's baffling to me that China and India are missing from almost all discussion of carbon emissions. They produce more CO2 than the west combined, and it's growing. And this isn't because of emission exports, as exports from china are falling yet their emissions are growing. It's because of their growing internal consumption. Any serious discussion needs to include them. Otherwise you are not actually trying to solve the CO2 problem, just virtue signalling or actually wanting western decline, not a global warming solution.
- Tade0 3y ago
  Cumulative emissions still came mostly from the US, Canada, EU, Australia and Japan, so the geopolitical west: https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
  - aydyn 3y ago
    The west bootstrapped modern civilization. Other countries dont need to because cleaner technology is available now.
    - master-lincoln 3y ago
      Modern civilization is not sustainable and that's why we have this mess.
      - aydyn 3y ago
        Right, the point is its disingeuous to compare total historical CO2 output.
    - goodbyesf 3y ago
      > The west bootstrapped modern civilization Bootstrapped? You mean raped, pillaged, exterminated and polluted. > Other countries dont need to because cleaner technology is available now. 'Available'? You mean poor countries have to pay rich western countries exorbitant prices to use 'clean' technology when they could simply use abundant and cheap coal, oil, etc to develop? You act like we are trying to give underdeveloped countries free technology. No what developing regions like india, asean, africa, etc should be doing is pumping out coal, nuclear, gas, oil, fossil fuel plants and improving the lives of their people.
acchow 3y ago
> I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim 10 year old Model S’s have 80-90% of the original range.
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  Yep, most EV car batteries ever produced are still performing fine. EV manufacturers give eight year warranties on batteries + drive trains because they basically break down so rarely that they can do so safely. 100K miles or eight years. Whichever comes first. EV batteries tend to survive the vehicle they are in and have second and third lives for e.g. grid storage before eventually being recycled.
tpm 3y ago
> By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer Not at all. Even if that were true (it is for some vehicle classes and use cases but not generally), CO2 emissions are not the only car-related emmissions. > The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. But sulfuric emmissions are actually cooling the atmosphere, so limiting them won't do anything good for the climate. And to stop global warming it would not be enough anyway. > Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. Done: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme...
- bArray 3y ago
  > Not at all. Even if that were true (it is for some vehicle classes and use cases but not generally), CO2 emissions are not the only car-related emmissions. Please see another comment (don't want to duplicate the comments on HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 > But sulfuric emmissions are actually cooling the atmosphere, so limiting them won't do anything good for the climate. And to stop global warming it would not be enough anyway. Let's start ramping up sulphur fires then /s. I don't think this is a good option. I think getting a handle on shipping would make a quick enormous dent. > Done: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme... It's only as good as it can be enforced. Last time I checked I can still get cheap crap from China made with the worst environmental considerations.
  - tpm 3y ago
    > I don't think this is a good option. It's certainly not a good thing to willingly emit sulfur into atmosphere, but removing such emmissions does nothing positive to battle climate change. > I think getting a handle on shipping would make a quick enormous dent. You can think that, but should also prove that. I think ocean shipping is quite down on the list because shipping is energy-effective. It only emits about 2.9% of total greenhouse gasses. By comparison, road transport is at about 10%.
graemep 3y ago
" the phase down of fossil fuels is not happening quickly enough" It is not happening net - CO2 emissions are increasing. I have posted this on HN before, but the reaction I have got have been its depressing, rather than anything can be done about it. Look at the the lovely graph: https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-rising https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-risin.... "That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual." Agreed. Reducing shipping and international transport would also make it harder to move environmentally damaging manufacturing to a country that just allows it. "The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too." I am glad someone is mentioning ocean acidification which I think is a bigger concern. However, I do not think it makes a difference where the CO2 is released - surely the atmosphere and ocean CO2 levels are in some sort of equilibrium (a shifting one, of course) so the result is much the same?
- tpm 3y ago
  > Reducing shipping and international transport would also make it harder to move environmentally damaging manufacturing to a country that just allows it. It would also make manufacturing less effective and therefore more resource-intensive.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
It's unstoppable because clean energy is - by far and no small margin - the most economical option to generate energy. Meaning that recessions and messing with tax incentives has a short term effect of slowing down but not stopping the transition. Regardless of any incentives, economics still apply and people use those to their advantage. We've long crossed the point where renewables are dependent on incentives to make them economical. IEA is known for their conservative predictions. So, them saying that this might be true means it's basically a done deal and that they can no longer deny this is happening. Other side effects of recessions and fossil fuel price induced inflation include increased price sensitivity for things like oil and gas. Those things suddenly getting very expensive are a main driver of people wanting to reduce their dependence on those things. I don't get your vehicle emissions formula. How does the years of service reduce the emissions when literally every mile you drive them blows more emissions out of the tailpipe? If anything, that only gets worse for older vehicles because their engines wear out and the fuel efficiency drops. Tail pipe emissions are gigantic for these vehicles. This is not reduced in any way by the years of service. Any year you drive these things longer, you add to that. It's a cumulative effect. You drive 15000 miles in an old car in a year doing 10 miles to the gallon (which would be very nice for an old car), that's 1500 gallons of fuel in a year. That's a lot of CO2 emissions and other pollution. Add to that oil changes, new parts, etc. And it only gets worse. And the economics of this are that have to buy that fuel. Every year. Depending what state you are in that could be as much as 5$/gallon. So, 7500/year. The economics of that are pretty terrible. Adds up to a new Tesla Model 3 in about 5-7 years basically. That's excluding maintenance of course. Also not nothing for an old car.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  > It's unstoppable because clean energy is - by far and no small margin - the most economical option to generate energy. That's the reason why Germany and Denmark have one of the most expensive electricity prices in EU?
  - throwaway473825 3y ago
    Germany has very high taxes on electricity: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/berlin-considers-slashing-electricity-tax-by-95-to-boost-heat-pump-uptake/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/ber... It also doesn't help that Germany still uses a lot of gas and coal, the two most expensive common sources of electricity.
locallost 3y ago
The mistake you're making is assuming that the only advantage of renewable energy is that it's clean and that countries are sacrificing a lot to get them installed. But that's not true, and the wars you mention have only accelerated the push for renewables. Not only are they cheaper but now there's the factor of trying to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. Here's an article when the war in the Ukraine started on how this will result in even more expansion of renewable energy, which is in fact what happened: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/putins-war-will-drive-a-faster-shift-to-clean-energy https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/putins-war... Whoever wrote that was smart to predict the future - it's a bad idea to misinterpret the present.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
Wars are going to play havoc with fossil fuel deliveries. Basically any place that relies on cheap overseas ship-born delivery of liquid fuels (think, Europe and much of Asia) is going to have a tough time if things get bad enough. Once built, renewable sources have no fuel needs.
ben_w 3y ago
> What makes 1.5C key? Why not 2C This is like asking why a specific number of cigarettes per day (or a specific level of alcohol consumption) is bad — it's all bad (given we go faster than evolution can keep up), but the more you do, the greater the risk. The reason we don't aim for "0 C" is that this is too hard, just as giving up smoking is too hard for most. Think of this as a "SMART" goal: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely. As a separate point: The timescales on [2] would make all of human history since the evolution of Homo Sapiens a single pixel. It isn't capable of supporting your claim that "earth's temperature has risen fast in the past" in comparison to that done by anthropogenic effects. > That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual. We have to do as much as possible everywhere in every aspect. This includes shipping, even though it's one of the lower-emitting sectors even when combined with aviation: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector > The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. Yes, although ironically for this reason the world switched away from sulphur-rich shipping fuels about a year ago, and… the temperature immediately went up because those sulphur compounds were seeding high-altitude clouds that reflected a lot more sunlight.

by bArray 3y ago

Propelloni 3y ago

> I would not be making such claims with a global recession and wars increasingly prevalent. A lot of legislation around clean energy may be pushed aside for economic or security purposes. The economics of renewables are favorable in comparison to fossil fuels, even when you remove all subsidies. What makes them appear more expensive today is that the infrastructure for fossil energy carriers is already there, the one for renewables is often just being built. Obviously there is a tipping point somewhere in the future. Unfortunatly, time is the one thing we don't have. > What makes 1.5C key? Why not 2C [1]? And is this normalised for background rise vs actual rise? The Wikipedia link you provided alludes to the reasoning why 1.5 °C are key. The article also links to a longer piece by the IPC explaining the reasoning. > The earth's temperature has risen fast in the past too [2]. True, the changes in temperature earth has experienced over the last 500 millions years are vastly larger than 2 °C. Only 400 millions years ago oceans were hot baths with a thriving ecosphere! From this vantage point the "there is no planet B" slogan seems less clever, agreed. Climate change will not end earth or nature in general, both will be fine. It will just end the living conditions in which humanity can thrive or even survive. > By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim and they also have a higher emissions for manufacturing. There are 10-year old EV on the road today. Their batteries are still working. Even so, recycling batteries is possible and on the verge of economic feasibility. There are numerous service providers and some say there is going to be big money in it. According to Argonne's GREET model the break-point, where an EV shows a smaller overall environmental footprint versus an ICEV, is somewhere around the 20000km mark [1][5]. The environmental damage caused by an ICEV over its lifetime therefore exceeds the damage caused by an EV and it becomes worse the longer the ICEV runs. Maybe cars in general are just not the ideal solution if reducing environmental damage is the priority? I don't know. Anyhow, considering that driving ICE cars is not banned anywhere, you can go this route. Some nations have banned admitting new ICEs, but that is not the same. > They are also only as environmentally friendly as the energy generation which is continuously under threat and very difficult to scale without significant investment. That is actually a strength of EV. Any improvement in electricty generation and distribution is immediatly applicable to EV. And it is not hard, only expensive in terms of money. But drilling oil wells, building nuclear power plants, or coal mines is also expensive in terms of money, so what? I do not understand the remark concerning threats. How is renewable energy any more threatened than fossil fuels? > That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual. This is where we make big changes quickly [3]. The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. This is a worthwhile target. But 1) why only do one or the other if we can do both? And 2) shipping may be causing significant damage, but there are relativly few ships around (around 100000 [2]). You get scaling effects far beyond the effect of more environmental friendly shipping when you tackle the billion+ cars on this planet, too [3]. > Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. This would force Countries like China to clean up their act and stop Countries outsourcing their carbon emissions. That's a good idea! Let's see how the CBAM works out. It goes into effect in January 2024. [4] [1] https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet https://www.anl.gov/topic/greet [2] https://unctad.org/publication/handbook-statistics-2022 https://unctad.org/publication/handbook-statistics-2022 [3] https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world/ https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-the... [4] https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme... [5] Found this later: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d...

tribaal 3y ago

Battery manufacturing emissions are dwarfed by lifetime emissions of a gasoline powered car, according to the EPA. They do about double the emissions for manufacturing, but that's not all that much. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths This doesn't take away the main point of your comment of course, you're right that keeping a vehicle longer is the most impactful decision.

graemep 3y ago
I drive a small car approx 3000 miles a year. Is it true for me? Almost all the claims in your link are qualified with the word "typical"
- cinntaile 3y ago
  Surely you can input the numbers yourself and find out? Just use the GREET model that is mentioned there, it exists as an Excel spreadsheet.

themoose8 3y ago

2C is criticized as insufficient, because even a warming of two degrees will have serious consequences for humans and the environment, as demonstrated in particular by the IPCC Special Report on the consequences of a global warming of 1.5C [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_%C2%B0C https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_War...

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
This is actually spelled out in the first paragraph of the link they provided, which makes me wonder why they linked to it in the first place.

realusername 3y ago

> By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim and they also have a higher emissions for manufacturing Well no, the emissions threshold between both types of cars is only around 35k km on the lifetime of the vehicle. So unless you are retired and only going once per month to the nearby supermarket until you decommission the car, the most environmental friendly in most common scenarios is to get rid of the petrol car in favor of an electric one. Part of the reason behind these results is the very high polluting petrol infrastructure and the other part is the very low efficiency of petrol cars at around 35% which certainly doesn't help.

Tade0 3y ago
I was originally planning to switch to an EV in 2027, but during the past three years I've been doing less than 6k km annually. I still fire it up twice a month to do a weekend trip to places without public transport infrastructure, but that's it. And this is the sort of edge case where it makes more sense to keep the fossil car - not your average daily user who racks up more miles annually than I do in three years. My hope is that in the future I will be able to convert it to fully electric, since it's a hybrid.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/ev-fossil-cars-climate https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/ev-fossil-cars-cli... Has graphs and data to further illustrate your point on EVs vs continued use of an ICE. > Buying a new EV will often result in lower emissions compared to buying a second-hand petrol car unless you only plan to drive it for a year or two, or you’re driving very little.
bArray 3y ago
Please see another comment (don't want to duplicate the comments on HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960

bryanlarsen 3y ago

> By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer, until they are eventually traded for something more efficient. That is not true. The breakeven point vis-a-vis carbon emissions is 2 years, assuming the average milage of 13,500 miles. An EV is better than an equivalent new gasoline car if it drives at least 13,500 miles before being scrapped. A new EV is better than an equivalent used gasoline car if it drives at least 27,000 more miles before being scrapped. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/04/new-ev-vs-old-beater-which-is-better-for-the-environment/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/04/new-ev-vs-old-beater-wh... > I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim There are lots of >10 year old Leafs and Model S's on the road. And Leaf is the worst case scenario. Without temperature management they wear out a lot quicker than every other car battery does. And remember that used batteries don't get thrown out, they generally get repurposed into stationary storage. They can be recycled but generally aren't because they're too useful as is.

bArray 3y ago
From the article: > The idea is right up there with the myth that the United States is powered almost entirely by coal and that EVs are thus worse polluters than gas engines. The reality is that coal makes up about 20 to 22 percent of the national power grid. Coal is not the only problem. Power stations can also use some forms of oil, gas (whether they call it green or not, is still a pollutant), etc. Building the infrastructure for green energy itself has a carbon footprint that takes a while to pay off. Secondly, in the Reuters article it assumes the comparison vehicle is brand new, and starts with a carbon offset: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d... Under the assumption you already have the Toyota, and the question is "should I scrap my Toyota to buy an electric car", and the electricity is generated from 20% coal (not including other carbon sources), the answer is simply no - keep driving your old car. > There are lots of >10 year old Leafs and Model S's on the road. And Leaf is the worst case scenario. Without temperature management they wear out a lot quicker than every other car battery does. And remember that used batteries don't get thrown out, they generally get repurposed into stationary storage. They can be recycled but generally aren't because they're too useful as is. I think the Nissan Leaf has survivor bias - it's one electric car that was successful, plus all the ones with failed batteries are no longer on the road, you only see the good ones still driving. What's really important though is the remaining capacity. An EV that claims 500 miles that can only do 200 miles after some years will start to become a hindrance. As the capacity of the battery drops, I imagine the internal resistance of the battery increases and more of that energy gets converted to heat. Put simply, the EV gets less efficient as time goes on. Unfortunately we don't really have good numbers for this yet.

blitzar 3y ago

With a global recession and wars increasingly prevalent, a lot of legislation around clean energy may be required for economic and security purposes.

pjc50 3y ago
Indeed. Does your country import fossil fuels? Then you're at the mercy of global energy prices. Whereas renewables lock in the purchase of energy over 20+ years with a big upfront payment. Ironically the rise in interest rates may be the worst factor affecting the transition.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  If there is local resistance against any new generation sites, storage and transmission, then renewables will be difficult to get into place while old stuff can still work - never underestimate the resistance to change.

zpeti 3y ago

> This would force Countries like China to clean up their act and stop Countries outsourcing their carbon emissions. It's baffling to me that China and India are missing from almost all discussion of carbon emissions. They produce more CO2 than the west combined, and it's growing. And this isn't because of emission exports, as exports from china are falling yet their emissions are growing. It's because of their growing internal consumption. Any serious discussion needs to include them. Otherwise you are not actually trying to solve the CO2 problem, just virtue signalling or actually wanting western decline, not a global warming solution.

Tade0 3y ago
Cumulative emissions still came mostly from the US, Canada, EU, Australia and Japan, so the geopolitical west: https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
- aydyn 3y ago
  The west bootstrapped modern civilization. Other countries dont need to because cleaner technology is available now.
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    Modern civilization is not sustainable and that's why we have this mess.
    - aydyn 3y ago
      Right, the point is its disingeuous to compare total historical CO2 output.
  - goodbyesf 3y ago
    > The west bootstrapped modern civilization Bootstrapped? You mean raped, pillaged, exterminated and polluted. > Other countries dont need to because cleaner technology is available now. 'Available'? You mean poor countries have to pay rich western countries exorbitant prices to use 'clean' technology when they could simply use abundant and cheap coal, oil, etc to develop? You act like we are trying to give underdeveloped countries free technology. No what developing regions like india, asean, africa, etc should be doing is pumping out coal, nuclear, gas, oil, fossil fuel plants and improving the lives of their people.

acchow 3y ago

> I'm yet to be convinced that these EV batteries will serve out the 10 years they claim 10 year old Model S’s have 80-90% of the original range.

jillesvangurp 3y ago
Yep, most EV car batteries ever produced are still performing fine. EV manufacturers give eight year warranties on batteries + drive trains because they basically break down so rarely that they can do so safely. 100K miles or eight years. Whichever comes first. EV batteries tend to survive the vehicle they are in and have second and third lives for e.g. grid storage before eventually being recycled.

tpm 3y ago

> By far the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently is to keep existing vehicles running for longer Not at all. Even if that were true (it is for some vehicle classes and use cases but not generally), CO2 emissions are not the only car-related emmissions. > The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. But sulfuric emmissions are actually cooling the atmosphere, so limiting them won't do anything good for the climate. And to stop global warming it would not be enough anyway. > Then put in some regulation/tax regarding the import of materials or goods from countries that do not have good emissions standards. Done: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme...

bArray 3y ago
> Not at all. Even if that were true (it is for some vehicle classes and use cases but not generally), CO2 emissions are not the only car-related emmissions. Please see another comment (don't want to duplicate the comments on HN): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37998960 > But sulfuric emmissions are actually cooling the atmosphere, so limiting them won't do anything good for the climate. And to stop global warming it would not be enough anyway. Let's start ramping up sulphur fires then /s. I don't think this is a good option. I think getting a handle on shipping would make a quick enormous dent. > Done: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustme... It's only as good as it can be enforced. Last time I checked I can still get cheap crap from China made with the worst environmental considerations.
- tpm 3y ago
  > I don't think this is a good option. It's certainly not a good thing to willingly emit sulfur into atmosphere, but removing such emmissions does nothing positive to battle climate change. > I think getting a handle on shipping would make a quick enormous dent. You can think that, but should also prove that. I think ocean shipping is quite down on the list because shipping is energy-effective. It only emits about 2.9% of total greenhouse gasses. By comparison, road transport is at about 10%.

graemep 3y ago

" the phase down of fossil fuels is not happening quickly enough" It is not happening net - CO2 emissions are increasing. I have posted this on HN before, but the reaction I have got have been its depressing, rather than anything can be done about it. Look at the the lovely graph: https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-rising https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-risin.... "That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual." Agreed. Reducing shipping and international transport would also make it harder to move environmentally damaging manufacturing to a country that just allows it. "The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too." I am glad someone is mentioning ocean acidification which I think is a bigger concern. However, I do not think it makes a difference where the CO2 is released - surely the atmosphere and ocean CO2 levels are in some sort of equilibrium (a shifting one, of course) so the result is much the same?

tpm 3y ago
> Reducing shipping and international transport would also make it harder to move environmentally damaging manufacturing to a country that just allows it. It would also make manufacturing less effective and therefore more resource-intensive.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

It's unstoppable because clean energy is - by far and no small margin - the most economical option to generate energy. Meaning that recessions and messing with tax incentives has a short term effect of slowing down but not stopping the transition. Regardless of any incentives, economics still apply and people use those to their advantage. We've long crossed the point where renewables are dependent on incentives to make them economical. IEA is known for their conservative predictions. So, them saying that this might be true means it's basically a done deal and that they can no longer deny this is happening. Other side effects of recessions and fossil fuel price induced inflation include increased price sensitivity for things like oil and gas. Those things suddenly getting very expensive are a main driver of people wanting to reduce their dependence on those things. I don't get your vehicle emissions formula. How does the years of service reduce the emissions when literally every mile you drive them blows more emissions out of the tailpipe? If anything, that only gets worse for older vehicles because their engines wear out and the fuel efficiency drops. Tail pipe emissions are gigantic for these vehicles. This is not reduced in any way by the years of service. Any year you drive these things longer, you add to that. It's a cumulative effect. You drive 15000 miles in an old car in a year doing 10 miles to the gallon (which would be very nice for an old car), that's 1500 gallons of fuel in a year. That's a lot of CO2 emissions and other pollution. Add to that oil changes, new parts, etc. And it only gets worse. And the economics of this are that have to buy that fuel. Every year. Depending what state you are in that could be as much as 5$/gallon. So, 7500/year. The economics of that are pretty terrible. Adds up to a new Tesla Model 3 in about 5-7 years basically. That's excluding maintenance of course. Also not nothing for an old car.

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
> It's unstoppable because clean energy is - by far and no small margin - the most economical option to generate energy. That's the reason why Germany and Denmark have one of the most expensive electricity prices in EU?
- throwaway473825 3y ago
  Germany has very high taxes on electricity: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/berlin-considers-slashing-electricity-tax-by-95-to-boost-heat-pump-uptake/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/ber... It also doesn't help that Germany still uses a lot of gas and coal, the two most expensive common sources of electricity.

locallost 3y ago

The mistake you're making is assuming that the only advantage of renewable energy is that it's clean and that countries are sacrificing a lot to get them installed. But that's not true, and the wars you mention have only accelerated the push for renewables. Not only are they cheaper but now there's the factor of trying to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. Here's an article when the war in the Ukraine started on how this will result in even more expansion of renewable energy, which is in fact what happened: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/putins-war-will-drive-a-faster-shift-to-clean-energy https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/putins-war... Whoever wrote that was smart to predict the future - it's a bad idea to misinterpret the present.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

Wars are going to play havoc with fossil fuel deliveries. Basically any place that relies on cheap overseas ship-born delivery of liquid fuels (think, Europe and much of Asia) is going to have a tough time if things get bad enough. Once built, renewable sources have no fuel needs.

ben_w 3y ago

> What makes 1.5C key? Why not 2C This is like asking why a specific number of cigarettes per day (or a specific level of alcohol consumption) is bad — it's all bad (given we go faster than evolution can keep up), but the more you do, the greater the risk. The reason we don't aim for "0 C" is that this is too hard, just as giving up smoking is too hard for most. Think of this as a "SMART" goal: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely. As a separate point: The timescales on [2] would make all of human history since the evolution of Homo Sapiens a single pixel. It isn't capable of supporting your claim that "earth's temperature has risen fast in the past" in comparison to that done by anthropogenic effects. > That said, if you really want to make a dent, start tackling the shipping industry rather than the individual. We have to do as much as possible everywhere in every aspect. This includes shipping, even though it's one of the lower-emitting sectors even when combined with aviation: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector > The emissions from these ships is also likely directly acidifying our oceans too. Yes, although ironically for this reason the world switched away from sulphur-rich shipping fuels about a year ago, and… the temperature immediately went up because those sulphur compounds were seeding high-altitude clouds that reflected a lot more sunlight.