3 ms·

Direct quote: In fact for some use cases they can actually work out both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly once you total up their carbon

Direct quote: In fact for some use cases they can actually work out both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly once you total up their carbon footprint in full. End quote. No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles. As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40. Locally I go on foot, bike and rarely public transport and long distance by train and I rarely fly. So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live. If not, EVs are a much better option.

hnlmorg 2y ago
Exactly. That quote doesn’t mention mileage. You mentioned it. > No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles. You’re being overly generalised. There are different ICE cars that have different carbon footprints. Hybrids too. Different driving styles that can affect fuel consumption too. Just as there are different EVs that have different running costs, different mileage per charge, and different carbon footprints to manufacture. Then you have questions about how that electricity was generated. Most countries are improving with their use of renewables but there are some counties out there that are just going to burn fossil fuels anyway. However even if you ignore external factors like driving style, and where the electricity comes from, you still have literally thousands of different variables just on the vehicles alone. These are all important variables that shape the results. Saying “20k miles” is completely bullshit headline made by people trying to greenwash people into buying EV. There isnt this magic line you claim there is. Instead we have a massive fuzzy grey area. I also think you massively underestimate just how different European cars are to American cars. Plus the fact that even your grossly generalised statement acknowledges that there is a cross over point, means I’m still factually correct; even ignoring how overly simplistic (to the point of being factually incorrect) you are. > As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40. Right. So your points are from a theoretical perspective rather than actual experience. Understood. > So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live. I’m getting really sick of your assumptions about me. I’ve already said I work from home and rarely need to drive. That was literally in the comment you claimed to have “read carefully” - thus proving my point that you hadn’t. I live in the countryside. So I do walk and cycle lots. That’s the entire reason I chose to live where I live. ——— You have this impression that cars are literally one thing and it’s a Boolean decision. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. People like yourself need to understand that life is fully of nuance. Which was the point of my original comment: that the issue around EVs environmental footprint is still being understood but even by conservative estimates, there’s still a lot of room to improve. Yet you missed all of that when you “carefully read” my comment and instead focused on some meaningless generalisation you saw on twitter coupled with a bunch of incorrect assumptions about myself.
- locallost 2y ago
  I didn't read much because actually the point about the way electricity is generated was already mentioned. It's right there in the first post - with the electricity grid of yesterday. If you'd followed the link you'd see how it was based etc. Things aren't really that unclear or case to case either. A person buying a tiny IC car will not suddenly decide to buy a 7 ton Hummer EV where suddenly their carbon footprint is much higher. They will buy a Volt or whatever it's called. So there really is nothing really that important other than mileage. EVs are clearly better in every use case, as long as we're talking about the environment. And lastly first hand experience in driving and owning a car is not helpful in determining carbon footprint. The research I linked to is helpful. Under 20k miles per car (on average - if it makes you feel better, but please note I am not insinuating it will make you feel better) with the electricity grid of yesterday. As the grid decarbonizes, this will be even less. More EVs please.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    > Things aren't really that unclear or case to case either. Of course its case by case. A 3.2lt Maserati Quattroporte is obviously going to have a lower MPG than a 1lt Vauxhall Corsa. And that’s without taking any into account the types of road you drive on and the exact year of build of the car. > A person buying a tiny IC car will not suddenly decide to buy a 7 ton Hummer EV where suddenly their carbon footprint is much higher. I never suggested they would. But also not every model of ICE vehicle will have an exactly equivalent model of EV. In fact I ran into the exact problem myself. And I did look. > So there really is nothing really that important other than mileage. And this is where your lack of experience with cars is apparent. I don’t mean to be snarky but I’ve given numerous examples and you’re still sticking firm to this fallacy that there isn’t much variation in cars. > EVs are clearly better in every use case, as long as we're talking about the environment. It wasn’t just about the environment. I did also talk about cost too. In that post you “read carefully” in fact. This is why I’ve been getting a little snarky. You claim to read my comments but then completely ignore everything I’ve said and draw your own strawman arguments instead. Presumably a knee jerk reaction because you’ve incorrectly labeled me as a petrolhead. > And lastly first hand experience in driving and owning a car is not helpful in determining carbon footprint. It is very helpful because you start to understand that even the same car can have different fuel consumption characteristics depending on who’s driving it, on what type of roads, and the length of those journeys. Let alone the wildly different characteristics of different cars even in the same class of vehicle. You don’t seem to understand that different engine sizes matter. The weight of the car matters. The gear ratios (automatic) or how you shift gears (manual). The roads (do you need to shift gears a lot or cruise at a constant speed?). Even how heavily you break can have a massive impact on fuel consumption. Wheel sizes, tyres, road surfaces. Is your local area flat or hilly? Do you drive longer or shorter distances? Does your car have a stop-start engine? Or hybrid? How many cylinders? Turbo injection? Etc. There simply isn’t a standard. So if you then take averages you’re going to find that all those sporty ICE cars will massively skew the results against those small European cars. And the people who buy EV for environmental reasons are more likely to be buying a small ICE vehicle if EVs weren’t an option. You seem to think all cars are roughly equivalent and that demonstrates just how little you actually know on this subject. > As the grid decarbonizes, this will be even less. I agree. Which is why I also said that in my original comment. The one you “read carefully”. > More EVs please I agree. I was never arguing against EVs. I was just saying that EVs seem to suffer a lot from greenwashing when actually there’s still a long way for them to go before they live up to the claims people make about them. It’s still a young industry though so that will change. But people like yourself need to understand that doesn’t mean EVs are the silver bullet. What we really need is better types of fuel. EVs are a step in the right direction but it still largely just pushes the problem upstream. We still need to clean up electricity production even with EVs.

hnlmorg 2y ago

Exactly. That quote doesn’t mention mileage. You mentioned it. > No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles. You’re being overly generalised. There are different ICE cars that have different carbon footprints. Hybrids too. Different driving styles that can affect fuel consumption too. Just as there are different EVs that have different running costs, different mileage per charge, and different carbon footprints to manufacture. Then you have questions about how that electricity was generated. Most countries are improving with their use of renewables but there are some counties out there that are just going to burn fossil fuels anyway. However even if you ignore external factors like driving style, and where the electricity comes from, you still have literally thousands of different variables just on the vehicles alone. These are all important variables that shape the results. Saying “20k miles” is completely bullshit headline made by people trying to greenwash people into buying EV. There isnt this magic line you claim there is. Instead we have a massive fuzzy grey area. I also think you massively underestimate just how different European cars are to American cars. Plus the fact that even your grossly generalised statement acknowledges that there is a cross over point, means I’m still factually correct; even ignoring how overly simplistic (to the point of being factually incorrect) you are. > As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40. Right. So your points are from a theoretical perspective rather than actual experience. Understood. > So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live. I’m getting really sick of your assumptions about me. I’ve already said I work from home and rarely need to drive. That was literally in the comment you claimed to have “read carefully” - thus proving my point that you hadn’t. I live in the countryside. So I do walk and cycle lots. That’s the entire reason I chose to live where I live. ——— You have this impression that cars are literally one thing and it’s a Boolean decision. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. People like yourself need to understand that life is fully of nuance. Which was the point of my original comment: that the issue around EVs environmental footprint is still being understood but even by conservative estimates, there’s still a lot of room to improve. Yet you missed all of that when you “carefully read” my comment and instead focused on some meaningless generalisation you saw on twitter coupled with a bunch of incorrect assumptions about myself.

locallost 2y ago
I didn't read much because actually the point about the way electricity is generated was already mentioned. It's right there in the first post - with the electricity grid of yesterday. If you'd followed the link you'd see how it was based etc. Things aren't really that unclear or case to case either. A person buying a tiny IC car will not suddenly decide to buy a 7 ton Hummer EV where suddenly their carbon footprint is much higher. They will buy a Volt or whatever it's called. So there really is nothing really that important other than mileage. EVs are clearly better in every use case, as long as we're talking about the environment. And lastly first hand experience in driving and owning a car is not helpful in determining carbon footprint. The research I linked to is helpful. Under 20k miles per car (on average - if it makes you feel better, but please note I am not insinuating it will make you feel better) with the electricity grid of yesterday. As the grid decarbonizes, this will be even less. More EVs please.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  > Things aren't really that unclear or case to case either. Of course its case by case. A 3.2lt Maserati Quattroporte is obviously going to have a lower MPG than a 1lt Vauxhall Corsa. And that’s without taking any into account the types of road you drive on and the exact year of build of the car. > A person buying a tiny IC car will not suddenly decide to buy a 7 ton Hummer EV where suddenly their carbon footprint is much higher. I never suggested they would. But also not every model of ICE vehicle will have an exactly equivalent model of EV. In fact I ran into the exact problem myself. And I did look. > So there really is nothing really that important other than mileage. And this is where your lack of experience with cars is apparent. I don’t mean to be snarky but I’ve given numerous examples and you’re still sticking firm to this fallacy that there isn’t much variation in cars. > EVs are clearly better in every use case, as long as we're talking about the environment. It wasn’t just about the environment. I did also talk about cost too. In that post you “read carefully” in fact. This is why I’ve been getting a little snarky. You claim to read my comments but then completely ignore everything I’ve said and draw your own strawman arguments instead. Presumably a knee jerk reaction because you’ve incorrectly labeled me as a petrolhead. > And lastly first hand experience in driving and owning a car is not helpful in determining carbon footprint. It is very helpful because you start to understand that even the same car can have different fuel consumption characteristics depending on who’s driving it, on what type of roads, and the length of those journeys. Let alone the wildly different characteristics of different cars even in the same class of vehicle. You don’t seem to understand that different engine sizes matter. The weight of the car matters. The gear ratios (automatic) or how you shift gears (manual). The roads (do you need to shift gears a lot or cruise at a constant speed?). Even how heavily you break can have a massive impact on fuel consumption. Wheel sizes, tyres, road surfaces. Is your local area flat or hilly? Do you drive longer or shorter distances? Does your car have a stop-start engine? Or hybrid? How many cylinders? Turbo injection? Etc. There simply isn’t a standard. So if you then take averages you’re going to find that all those sporty ICE cars will massively skew the results against those small European cars. And the people who buy EV for environmental reasons are more likely to be buying a small ICE vehicle if EVs weren’t an option. You seem to think all cars are roughly equivalent and that demonstrates just how little you actually know on this subject. > As the grid decarbonizes, this will be even less. I agree. Which is why I also said that in my original comment. The one you “read carefully”. > More EVs please I agree. I was never arguing against EVs. I was just saying that EVs seem to suffer a lot from greenwashing when actually there’s still a long way for them to go before they live up to the claims people make about them. It’s still a young industry though so that will change. But people like yourself need to understand that doesn’t mean EVs are the silver bullet. What we really need is better types of fuel. EVs are a step in the right direction but it still largely just pushes the problem upstream. We still need to clean up electricity production even with EVs.