4 ms·

All of this progress is also good information to counter the endless claims that electric vehicles are destroying the world. There is an impact from all mining

All of this progress is also good information to counter the endless claims that electric vehicles are destroying the world. There is an impact from all mining exercises and there are terrible conditions in some cobalt mines. Tesla apparently buys from only certified cobalt suppliers, for example. But every article that talks about improvements in efficiency in recycling and the continuing improvements help to set the record straight. We could reach almost steady state of battery materials eventually with more and better battery recycling. I wonder when that might be expected? 30 years for EVs to go through the car fleet and replace all other cars, then most battery materials can come from recycling? However there will likely be different minerals in new battery tech over time, will solid state batteries be as recyclable?

pompino 3y ago
Improving public transportation is a far superior solution than forcing people to buy EV cars by outlawing gas engines. For the median income in the US, or person working minimum wage - all of this is pie-in-the-sky elite talk. EVs are essentially for rick folks to feel better about themselves.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  Class warfare aside, public transport will transition to EVs as well and there is a lot of promise in self driving vehicles smaller than a bus making public transport cheaper, more flexible, and more attractive. In the end people will buy EVs because they are cheaper and better. Governments are just trying to set goals and promote action against climate change.
  - pompino 3y ago
    There is no benefit to public transport when EV companies gets our tax money to build their charger network, or offering thousands of dollars of tax credit to rich folks to buy EVs. >In the end people will buy EVs because they are cheaper and better. I'm hoping people switch from EVs to public transit. Personally, I'm more interested in how the government can expand public transit in general so that the need for EV cars is eliminated or substantially reduced in the first place.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      The easiest way to get people to switch to public transport is to make it suck less. Short of forcing people to use it that's kind of the only way. It also contributes to CO2 emissions so it has to go electric and improvements in EVs also helps there. I can see your preference for public transport, but it's already heavily subsidised and only used by a minority of people in most places. Subsidies for EVs, which aim to reduce emissions from cars, which are extremely popular, seems quite equitable. I don't think further subsidy of public transport is going to materially increase its use, it has to improve beyond incremental availability. As I said automated vehicles are a much more promising avenue for drastically increasing public transport use.
    - throwaway22032 3y ago
      "Need" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I live in London, UK. We have lots of public transport. About half of my journeys can be done via public transport, about half of them can't. By can't, I mean that they are significantly slower, would require taxis on one or both ends, or simply are not possible due to one end being semi rural or rural. The half that can't represent far more mileage, emissions, etc. They also frankly are most if not all of the fun ones. Public transport works if you live a solely metropolitan life. If you do anything else, it just doesn't scale at all. This is of course ignoring the fact that in my own car I don't have to experience feral beings.
      - pompino 3y ago
        You can't solve everything at once, progress is incremental, and there are several case studies to the contrary. https://www.centreforcities.org/case-study-library/case-studies-improving-transport/ https://www.centreforcities.org/case-study-library/case-stud...
        Tagbert 3y ago
        That’s why we are pushing to convert the ICEV fleet to EVs.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- cyberax 3y ago
  Public transit is NEVER a good solution. It's at most a miserable workaround for inability to use personal cars.
  - pompino 3y ago
    Personal cars (EV or otherwise) incur a huge carbon tax to manufacture, are difficult to recycle, and are idle during most of the day. You're welcome to your opinion.
    - relativ575 3y ago
      You can say that pretty much about any personal items -- laptop, phone, clothes, shoes, even your house. Manufacturing them cause harm to the environment and they're idle most of the time. Some of your clothes may stay unused for years, or forever. Yet nobody advocates for sharing them. That's because they are personal, reflect the owner's personality, and they're there when you need them. Why is car different? I love train and tram (not so much bus) and would love to see them doing well, but I understand why people love car, and not only in less dense countries. Do you know that car ownership in Netherlands is on the rise? [0]. One of the reasons cited being people preferring cars as they get older. If you want to advocate for public transportation, make sure you understand why people love cars, and strive to make public transportation suck less, primarily with flexible schedule, quicker, and more readily available. [0] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358798695_The_widespread_car_ownership_in_the_Netherlands https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358798695_The_wides...
      - pompino 3y ago
        >You can say that pretty much about any personal items -- laptop, phone, clothes, shoes, even your house. Manufacturing them cause harm to the environment and they're idle most of the time. Some of your clothes may stay unused for years, or forever. Yet nobody advocates for sharing them. That's because they are personal, reflect the owner's personality, and they're there when you need them. This is just false. T shirts and shoes do not cause the same level of harm to the environment as manufacturing a car. It seems to me you don't understand what goes into mining, refining, processing all of the parts that go into making a car. You also don't seem to understand how progress happens - incrementally - by tackling the big-ticket items first. Good luck with your anti-public transport argument, you haven't convinced me.

pompino 3y ago

Improving public transportation is a far superior solution than forcing people to buy EV cars by outlawing gas engines. For the median income in the US, or person working minimum wage - all of this is pie-in-the-sky elite talk. EVs are essentially for rick folks to feel better about themselves.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
Class warfare aside, public transport will transition to EVs as well and there is a lot of promise in self driving vehicles smaller than a bus making public transport cheaper, more flexible, and more attractive. In the end people will buy EVs because they are cheaper and better. Governments are just trying to set goals and promote action against climate change.
- pompino 3y ago
  There is no benefit to public transport when EV companies gets our tax money to build their charger network, or offering thousands of dollars of tax credit to rich folks to buy EVs. >In the end people will buy EVs because they are cheaper and better. I'm hoping people switch from EVs to public transit. Personally, I'm more interested in how the government can expand public transit in general so that the need for EV cars is eliminated or substantially reduced in the first place.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    The easiest way to get people to switch to public transport is to make it suck less. Short of forcing people to use it that's kind of the only way. It also contributes to CO2 emissions so it has to go electric and improvements in EVs also helps there. I can see your preference for public transport, but it's already heavily subsidised and only used by a minority of people in most places. Subsidies for EVs, which aim to reduce emissions from cars, which are extremely popular, seems quite equitable. I don't think further subsidy of public transport is going to materially increase its use, it has to improve beyond incremental availability. As I said automated vehicles are a much more promising avenue for drastically increasing public transport use.
  - throwaway22032 3y ago
    "Need" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I live in London, UK. We have lots of public transport. About half of my journeys can be done via public transport, about half of them can't. By can't, I mean that they are significantly slower, would require taxis on one or both ends, or simply are not possible due to one end being semi rural or rural. The half that can't represent far more mileage, emissions, etc. They also frankly are most if not all of the fun ones. Public transport works if you live a solely metropolitan life. If you do anything else, it just doesn't scale at all. This is of course ignoring the fact that in my own car I don't have to experience feral beings.
    - pompino 3y ago
      You can't solve everything at once, progress is incremental, and there are several case studies to the contrary. https://www.centreforcities.org/case-study-library/case-studies-improving-transport/ https://www.centreforcities.org/case-study-library/case-stud...
      - Tagbert 3y ago
        That’s why we are pushing to convert the ICEV fleet to EVs.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
cyberax 3y ago
Public transit is NEVER a good solution. It's at most a miserable workaround for inability to use personal cars.
- pompino 3y ago
  Personal cars (EV or otherwise) incur a huge carbon tax to manufacture, are difficult to recycle, and are idle during most of the day. You're welcome to your opinion.
  - relativ575 3y ago
    You can say that pretty much about any personal items -- laptop, phone, clothes, shoes, even your house. Manufacturing them cause harm to the environment and they're idle most of the time. Some of your clothes may stay unused for years, or forever. Yet nobody advocates for sharing them. That's because they are personal, reflect the owner's personality, and they're there when you need them. Why is car different? I love train and tram (not so much bus) and would love to see them doing well, but I understand why people love car, and not only in less dense countries. Do you know that car ownership in Netherlands is on the rise? [0]. One of the reasons cited being people preferring cars as they get older. If you want to advocate for public transportation, make sure you understand why people love cars, and strive to make public transportation suck less, primarily with flexible schedule, quicker, and more readily available. [0] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358798695_The_widespread_car_ownership_in_the_Netherlands https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358798695_The_wides...
    - pompino 3y ago
      >You can say that pretty much about any personal items -- laptop, phone, clothes, shoes, even your house. Manufacturing them cause harm to the environment and they're idle most of the time. Some of your clothes may stay unused for years, or forever. Yet nobody advocates for sharing them. That's because they are personal, reflect the owner's personality, and they're there when you need them. This is just false. T shirts and shoes do not cause the same level of harm to the environment as manufacturing a car. It seems to me you don't understand what goes into mining, refining, processing all of the parts that go into making a car. You also don't seem to understand how progress happens - incrementally - by tackling the big-ticket items first. Good luck with your anti-public transport argument, you haven't convinced me.