3 ms·

Bike > walk == public transit > used EV > new EV > used ICE > new ICE That's pretty much the order of "greenness" in personal transport. New EVs will pay off

by cogman10 10mo ago

Bike > walk == public transit > used EV > new EV > used ICE > new ICE That's pretty much the order of "greenness" in personal transport. New EVs will pay off their added carbon footprint in roughly 1 or 2 years in most locations. The ultimate determining factor of how fast that is the energy mix of your local power generation. The only time it'd probably be better to continue using an ICE is if that ICE is a moped or you live in West Virginia and drive a hybrid. For pretty much all other vehicle choices, switching to an EV will be greener.

closewith 10mo ago
Those must be US estimates involving huge mileage, because - taking your existing ICE car's production emissions as an already sunk cost - replacing an existing ICE with a new EV would over a decade of driving the average EU mileage (~10k km) before reaching emissions parity. It takes 2-4 years of that mileage alone for a new EV to reach lifetime emissions parity with a new ICE in the EU (which I know is longer than the US due to the vast differences in average emissions per vehicle between the two continents). For most of the world, the GP is correct. Driving whatever car you have will always be more environmentally friendly than buying a new EV. Reduce and reuse are environmental cornerstones for a reason.
- cogman10 10mo ago
  People keep their cars for longer than 2 to 4 years and an EV sold in 2 to 4 years will likely be driven by someone else. Which is why I put a used EV as being better for the environment vs a new one. But both will be better for the environment in their lifetime than keeping a used ICE on the road. It's more economical to keep your current car until it starts seeing major mechanical issues. However, environmentally an EV will (almost) always beat an ICE, the sooner you get one the better. Especially in a place like the EU where you can get even more environmentally friendly EVs due to the lower amounts of driving. You can, for example, grab the BYD seagull which has a 30kWh battery pack. That alone significantly reduces the new EV environmental impact beyond what some of the older numbers would have shown.
  - closewith 10mo ago
    > However, environmentally an EV will (almost) always beat an ICE, the sooner you get one the better. Especially in a place like the EU where you can get even more environmentally friendly EVs due to the lower amounts of driving. This is simply not true. A new EV will not reach emissions parity with a used ICE car in its average useful lifetime (12.5 years). This isn't close or controversial, so I wonder what the basis for your mistaken belief otherwise is? Not even EV companies make this claim.
    - cogman10 10mo ago
      The payoff period for an EV is anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000mi. The moment any EV crosses that threshold, it becomes better for the environment than the ICE vehicle that you'd otherwise buy. If your used ICE vehicle has 15 to 25,000mi in it, then yeah, replacing it with an EV today is the better choice. It's more a matter of when it will be the better choice. This is only not true if you have very low yearly milages or a particularly efficient ICE. Which, maybe you do. [1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxide-released-during-production-electric/#:~:text=Some%20estimates%20say%20that%20after%20about%2015%2C000,at%20the%20University%20of%20Liege%20in%20Belgium https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxid...
      - closewith 10mo ago
        > The payoff period for an EV is anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000mi. The moment any EV crosses that threshold, it becomes better for the environment than the ICE vehicle that you'd otherwise buy. That's the payoff period for the carbon differential between a new EV and a new ICE, not a new EV and your existing ICE, where the carbon cost of production is already sunk. Hence why the GP commented that keeping your ICE is environmentally better than buying a new EV. Also note that 15-25k miles is 24-40k km, or 2.4-4 years of the average annual mileage in the EU. That's to break even with a new ICE. To break even with a second hand ICE, it's on the order or 15-20 years, or effectively longer than the useful life of the EV. > If your used ICE vehicle has 15 to 25,000mi in it, then yeah, replacing it with an EV today is the better choice. It's more a matter of when it will be the better choice. This claim is simply false. There is no point in the lifetime of a used ICE where replacing it with a new EV will result in reduce overall emissions.
- cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
  Surely the composition of one’s local power grid factors in? There are areas where the share of renewables is much higher than the average.
  - closewith 10mo ago
    It does, but single digit percentages.
- zdragnar 10mo ago
  I've now heard three different carbon payback estimates for an EV in the last week, and one year is by far the most optimistic of the lot. My wife might be able to do it with the amount she commutes, but for me, working from home, it's utterly laughable.
hdgvhicv 10mo ago
My small car does 3,000 miles a year, or 300 litres of petrol a year, or about 1 ton of co2 a year. How many co2 tons are generated in making a new Nissan leaf?
- cogman10 10mo ago
  From an old forum post in 2013, the best I can find is about 15 tons. I suspect it's much lower than that number now-a-days. Primarily because the energy going into batteries production will both use less power and likely comes from greener power sources. If nissan is to be believed, since then they've cut the CO2 emissions from production by 40%. So maybe in the range of 9T?
- epistasis 10mo ago
  Buy a used Nissan Leaf, then? The sunk cost fallacy applies not only to dollars, but also to any quantitative phenomenon. The important thing to evaluate is the cost going forward. When you look at the cost of that new Nissan Leaf, you need to amortize the initial carbon cost over the rest of its lifetime, not just the few years you have it!
- bluGill 10mo ago
  I kept my last car for almost 20 years for that reason, but parts were rusting off - the fuel tank fell off was what made me give up. At this point that car is scrap and I am in a newer car that is made no matter what, so that co2 is a given.
graemep 10mo ago
How is biking better than walking? New EV vs used ICE will depend on how much you drive and in what conditions. I would guess what I do (in the UK) is uncommon in the US but it must be possible but working from home plus living in a town rather than a city means I only do low single digit thousands of miles a year and that almost entirely on clear roads. People in much of the UK commute by public transport and use their cars lightly (e.g. for shopping on the weekend, trips, etc).
- 303uru 10mo ago
  Bike is the most efficient form of transportation, even walking doesn’t compare.
  - graemep 10mo ago
    I want to get more exercise. Therefore I should walk rather than bike.
    - bluGill 10mo ago
      This is about transportation. Walking doesn't get you far. A bike uses similear energy but you get farther.
      - graemep 10mo ago
        Walking covers most of my journeys for which a bike would work. I am not going to bike a hundred mile, or even 15 and back. Nor is it practical to bike to the supermarket. On the other hand its easy to walk a few minutes to the local shops and pubs. Transportation and exercise are linked. Walking kills two birds with one stone.
- cogman10 10mo ago
  > How is biking better than walking? Glad you asked. Biking has an energy efficiency of around 99%. Very little of the effort you put into biking ends up as waste heat. Walking, on the other hand, has a much lower energy efficiency. You are putting much more effort overcoming and generating friction as you move your legs. You are also doing it for a longer period of time since you are going slower. It's one of my favorite counterintuitive facts. > I would guess what I do (in the UK) is uncommon in the US And that's for sure. In almost every US city if you want to do anything, you are driving. Where I'm at, everything is at least 10mi from my home. That racks up the miles pretty quickly.
fortran77 10mo ago
How on earth is Bike > Walk? Walk is > Bike.
- 303uru 10mo ago
  Bike is the most efficient form of transportation, period.
  - graemep 10mo ago
    Shoes have a lower environmental impact and cost than than steel, plastic, rubber tyres (which AFAIK use at least some synthetic rubber made from oil), etc. Walking does not use fuel so efficiency is not really relevant. It requires less physical extortion so is more efficient that way, but another way to phrase that is that it is less exercise.
    - cogman10 10mo ago
      Bikes require very little steel and the rubber tires end up lasting longer (typically) than the shoes you do. > Walking does not use fuel so efficiency is not really relevant. Ah, it is. You eat food, that's fuel. It's the major source of CO2 for both activities. Now, it can be insignificant. If the only food you eat is like oatmeal and beans that you grow yourself, then yeah it's going to have a non-existent impact. However, if you have any sort of meat or imported foods, that CO2 budget can go up pretty quickly. The actual energy for making the steel for a bike, which will outlast your children, isn't significant.
      - graemep 10mo ago
        > Ah, it is. You eat food, that's fuel. It's the major source of CO2 for both activities. That implies all exercise is a bad thing. i think you will find very few people are sufficiently keen to reduce CO2 that they will deliberately get less exercise and damage their health. I am certainly not doing that. At the moment I am trying to get more exercise. > Bikes require very little steel Compared to a car, certainly. Compared to shoes, an awful lot. > a bike, which will outlast your children The typical life span of a bike seems to be about five and ten year years. I really hope my kids last a reasonable multiple of the top end! The level of sales of cycles in the UK (well over 1 million a year) vs the number of people who cycle at least once a week (less seven million) implies a life of about five years. About half of that is leisure cyclists so not really comparable to people using transport to get somewhere. Leisure cyclists want to get more exercise so by your argument about that being a bad thing they (and therefore half of all UK cyclists) are actively harmful. https://road.cc/content/news/uk-cycle-sales-plummet-early-1970s-levels-2024-313015 https://road.cc/content/news/uk-cycle-sales-plummet-early-19... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e71a4f20ae890014f26d32/cycling-factsheet-2022.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e71a4f20ae8...
Etheryte 10mo ago
This type of thinking is flawed. Me buying a new EV does not take my old ICE out of circulation, it just puts it in the hands of someone else. Buying less, whether that's cars or anything else, is the baseline to aim for.

closewith 10mo ago

Those must be US estimates involving huge mileage, because - taking your existing ICE car's production emissions as an already sunk cost - replacing an existing ICE with a new EV would over a decade of driving the average EU mileage (~10k km) before reaching emissions parity. It takes 2-4 years of that mileage alone for a new EV to reach lifetime emissions parity with a new ICE in the EU (which I know is longer than the US due to the vast differences in average emissions per vehicle between the two continents). For most of the world, the GP is correct. Driving whatever car you have will always be more environmentally friendly than buying a new EV. Reduce and reuse are environmental cornerstones for a reason.

cogman10 10mo ago
People keep their cars for longer than 2 to 4 years and an EV sold in 2 to 4 years will likely be driven by someone else. Which is why I put a used EV as being better for the environment vs a new one. But both will be better for the environment in their lifetime than keeping a used ICE on the road. It's more economical to keep your current car until it starts seeing major mechanical issues. However, environmentally an EV will (almost) always beat an ICE, the sooner you get one the better. Especially in a place like the EU where you can get even more environmentally friendly EVs due to the lower amounts of driving. You can, for example, grab the BYD seagull which has a 30kWh battery pack. That alone significantly reduces the new EV environmental impact beyond what some of the older numbers would have shown.
- closewith 10mo ago
  > However, environmentally an EV will (almost) always beat an ICE, the sooner you get one the better. Especially in a place like the EU where you can get even more environmentally friendly EVs due to the lower amounts of driving. This is simply not true. A new EV will not reach emissions parity with a used ICE car in its average useful lifetime (12.5 years). This isn't close or controversial, so I wonder what the basis for your mistaken belief otherwise is? Not even EV companies make this claim.
  - cogman10 10mo ago
    The payoff period for an EV is anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000mi. The moment any EV crosses that threshold, it becomes better for the environment than the ICE vehicle that you'd otherwise buy. If your used ICE vehicle has 15 to 25,000mi in it, then yeah, replacing it with an EV today is the better choice. It's more a matter of when it will be the better choice. This is only not true if you have very low yearly milages or a particularly efficient ICE. Which, maybe you do. [1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxide-released-during-production-electric/#:~:text=Some%20estimates%20say%20that%20after%20about%2015%2C000,at%20the%20University%20of%20Liege%20in%20Belgium https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxid...
    - closewith 10mo ago
      > The payoff period for an EV is anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000mi. The moment any EV crosses that threshold, it becomes better for the environment than the ICE vehicle that you'd otherwise buy. That's the payoff period for the carbon differential between a new EV and a new ICE, not a new EV and your existing ICE, where the carbon cost of production is already sunk. Hence why the GP commented that keeping your ICE is environmentally better than buying a new EV. Also note that 15-25k miles is 24-40k km, or 2.4-4 years of the average annual mileage in the EU. That's to break even with a new ICE. To break even with a second hand ICE, it's on the order or 15-20 years, or effectively longer than the useful life of the EV. > If your used ICE vehicle has 15 to 25,000mi in it, then yeah, replacing it with an EV today is the better choice. It's more a matter of when it will be the better choice. This claim is simply false. There is no point in the lifetime of a used ICE where replacing it with a new EV will result in reduce overall emissions.
cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
Surely the composition of one’s local power grid factors in? There are areas where the share of renewables is much higher than the average.
- closewith 10mo ago
  It does, but single digit percentages.
zdragnar 10mo ago
I've now heard three different carbon payback estimates for an EV in the last week, and one year is by far the most optimistic of the lot. My wife might be able to do it with the amount she commutes, but for me, working from home, it's utterly laughable.

hdgvhicv 10mo ago

My small car does 3,000 miles a year, or 300 litres of petrol a year, or about 1 ton of co2 a year. How many co2 tons are generated in making a new Nissan leaf?

cogman10 10mo ago
From an old forum post in 2013, the best I can find is about 15 tons. I suspect it's much lower than that number now-a-days. Primarily because the energy going into batteries production will both use less power and likely comes from greener power sources. If nissan is to be believed, since then they've cut the CO2 emissions from production by 40%. So maybe in the range of 9T?
epistasis 10mo ago
Buy a used Nissan Leaf, then? The sunk cost fallacy applies not only to dollars, but also to any quantitative phenomenon. The important thing to evaluate is the cost going forward. When you look at the cost of that new Nissan Leaf, you need to amortize the initial carbon cost over the rest of its lifetime, not just the few years you have it!
bluGill 10mo ago
I kept my last car for almost 20 years for that reason, but parts were rusting off - the fuel tank fell off was what made me give up. At this point that car is scrap and I am in a newer car that is made no matter what, so that co2 is a given.

graemep 10mo ago

How is biking better than walking? New EV vs used ICE will depend on how much you drive and in what conditions. I would guess what I do (in the UK) is uncommon in the US but it must be possible but working from home plus living in a town rather than a city means I only do low single digit thousands of miles a year and that almost entirely on clear roads. People in much of the UK commute by public transport and use their cars lightly (e.g. for shopping on the weekend, trips, etc).

303uru 10mo ago
Bike is the most efficient form of transportation, even walking doesn’t compare.
- graemep 10mo ago
  I want to get more exercise. Therefore I should walk rather than bike.
  - bluGill 10mo ago
    This is about transportation. Walking doesn't get you far. A bike uses similear energy but you get farther.
    - graemep 10mo ago
      Walking covers most of my journeys for which a bike would work. I am not going to bike a hundred mile, or even 15 and back. Nor is it practical to bike to the supermarket. On the other hand its easy to walk a few minutes to the local shops and pubs. Transportation and exercise are linked. Walking kills two birds with one stone.
cogman10 10mo ago
> How is biking better than walking? Glad you asked. Biking has an energy efficiency of around 99%. Very little of the effort you put into biking ends up as waste heat. Walking, on the other hand, has a much lower energy efficiency. You are putting much more effort overcoming and generating friction as you move your legs. You are also doing it for a longer period of time since you are going slower. It's one of my favorite counterintuitive facts. > I would guess what I do (in the UK) is uncommon in the US And that's for sure. In almost every US city if you want to do anything, you are driving. Where I'm at, everything is at least 10mi from my home. That racks up the miles pretty quickly.

fortran77 10mo ago

How on earth is Bike > Walk? Walk is > Bike.

303uru 10mo ago
Bike is the most efficient form of transportation, period.
- graemep 10mo ago
  Shoes have a lower environmental impact and cost than than steel, plastic, rubber tyres (which AFAIK use at least some synthetic rubber made from oil), etc. Walking does not use fuel so efficiency is not really relevant. It requires less physical extortion so is more efficient that way, but another way to phrase that is that it is less exercise.
  - cogman10 10mo ago
    Bikes require very little steel and the rubber tires end up lasting longer (typically) than the shoes you do. > Walking does not use fuel so efficiency is not really relevant. Ah, it is. You eat food, that's fuel. It's the major source of CO2 for both activities. Now, it can be insignificant. If the only food you eat is like oatmeal and beans that you grow yourself, then yeah it's going to have a non-existent impact. However, if you have any sort of meat or imported foods, that CO2 budget can go up pretty quickly. The actual energy for making the steel for a bike, which will outlast your children, isn't significant.
    - graemep 10mo ago
      > Ah, it is. You eat food, that's fuel. It's the major source of CO2 for both activities. That implies all exercise is a bad thing. i think you will find very few people are sufficiently keen to reduce CO2 that they will deliberately get less exercise and damage their health. I am certainly not doing that. At the moment I am trying to get more exercise. > Bikes require very little steel Compared to a car, certainly. Compared to shoes, an awful lot. > a bike, which will outlast your children The typical life span of a bike seems to be about five and ten year years. I really hope my kids last a reasonable multiple of the top end! The level of sales of cycles in the UK (well over 1 million a year) vs the number of people who cycle at least once a week (less seven million) implies a life of about five years. About half of that is leisure cyclists so not really comparable to people using transport to get somewhere. Leisure cyclists want to get more exercise so by your argument about that being a bad thing they (and therefore half of all UK cyclists) are actively harmful. https://road.cc/content/news/uk-cycle-sales-plummet-early-1970s-levels-2024-313015 https://road.cc/content/news/uk-cycle-sales-plummet-early-19... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e71a4f20ae890014f26d32/cycling-factsheet-2022.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e71a4f20ae8...

Etheryte 10mo ago

This type of thinking is flawed. Me buying a new EV does not take my old ICE out of circulation, it just puts it in the hands of someone else. Buying less, whether that's cars or anything else, is the baseline to aim for.