3 ms·

Patent discussion aside, I just want to point out that battery powered cars are NOT the solution to global warming, at least not at the current state of technol

by x0054 12y ago

Patent discussion aside, I just want to point out that battery powered cars are NOT the solution to global warming, at least not at the current state of technology. Aside from all the environmental damage involved in producing the lithium cells them selves, you have to also consider that to charge those cells we are still burning cola and then transmitting that power over an incredibly inefficient, almost 100 year old power grid (in US). In fact, given the environmental damage from production of a new car combined with environmental damage from production of lithium batteries, combined with CO2 emissions from the cola burning power plants and nuclear waste from the nuclear power plants, I would argue that the earth is better off if you were to drive an older F150 pickup truck for another 300k miles, rather than buy a new Tesla. If you have an option though, you should choose something more efficient. But overall, I just wanted to point out to anyone who is honestly concerned about global warming. Driving your current car for longer (assuming it's reasonably economical), and investing the money into fixing it up and getting more miles out of it is way better environmentally than buying a new car. Remamber, repair > reuse > recycle > replace.

quotient 12y ago
The idea is that battery powered cars will become more prevalent and effectively cleaner as the electrical energy used to power them is drawn from more renewable sources, rather than from fossil fuels.
nawitus 12y ago
Your point should've been "transportation emissions are only a small share of total CO2 emissions". If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you should start by becoming a vegan.
- falcolas 12y ago
  > If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you should start by becoming a vegan. I'm going to regret this, I have no doubt. Vegan != no carbon footprint. In fact, I would imagine that when compared to a typical vegetarian diet, it is less carbon efficient. Isolation from animal (by)products means that food bound for vegans typically requires specialized handling and processing. Loss of efficiency gained from the economies of scale. Limited food processing means that food can not be easily stockpiled and distributed. This results in more frequent but smaller food shipments - the opposite direction you want to go for efficiency. The small intersection with the average person's diet also means that vegan foodstuffs don't gain any production efficiency when compared to, say, a vegetarian's diet. All of that, and vegan-bound foodstuffs still have to be planted, fertilized, harvested and transported.
  - nawitus 12y ago
    >Vegan != no carbon footprint. Well, no sane person has claimed that. >In fact, I would imagine that when compared to a typical vegetarian diet, it is less carbon efficient. Your imagination is not consistent with reality/studies. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet >Isolation from animal (by)products means that food bound for vegans typically requires specialized handling and processing. The average vegan food is a lot more efficient than any animal product. An animal is just a biological machien which converts plant matter to animal products. You could take out the inefficient converter and just eat the plant directly. For example, 99% of soy in the United States is eaten by animals. >Limited food processing means that food can not be easily stockpiled and distributed. What? There's no special truck for vegan products. Supermarkets ship vegan and non-vegan products together. >All of that, and vegan-bound foodstuffs still have to be planted, fertilized, harvested and transported. Yeah. And because animals eat plants, the average omnivore consumes more plant matter than the average vegan.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "The average vegan food is a lot more efficient than any animal product. An animal is just a biological machien which converts plant matter to animal products. You could take out the inefficient converter and just eat the plant directly. For example, 99% of soy in the United States is eaten by animals." Not that this destroys your thesis, but some animals happily eat things humans won't. A pig fed leftovers is going to be more efficient than sending those leftovers to landfill. People don't eat much grass. &c. This is, of course, mostly irrelevant to how we actually feed ourselves in the developed world (where, for instance, pasture would serve other uses).
gamerdonkey 12y ago
Unfortunately, I don't have time for a more detailed response. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green
mrgriscom 12y ago
All else being equal, isn't a large fossil fuel power plant 2x more efficient than an ICE, simply from economies of scale from producing tons of power in one central place?
NickM 12y ago
This post highlights some persistent myths surrounding electric vehicles: 1) Even if you're using electricity derived 100% from burning coal, you're still causing less pollution than most gas-powered cars. This is because power plants are hugely, massively more efficient than internal combustion engines, and because it's much easier to filter pollution out of one big smokestack than thousands of small ones. Furthermore, even just refining oil into gasoline takes almost as much electricity as you'd need to power an EV directly. In the worst-case 100% coal scenario, certain fuel-efficient vehicles might be better than an EV in terms of carbon emissions, but in most real-world cases any EV is more environmentally friendly than any gasoline vehicle. This gap will only continue to widen as renewables continue to replace fossil fuel generation. 2) The production of lithium ion batteries doesn't cause significant environmental damage beyond what would otherwise go into building a gasoline car. There is some environmental damage caused by mining the required metals, but not nearly as much as the environmental damage caused by drilling for oil and refining it into gasoline. None of the materials involved are particularly exotic or toxic, and they are all easily recyclable, so the long-term damage here is pretty limited. Tesla uses batteries made of lithium, aluminum, carbon, and nickel. Older battery tech used toxic metals like cadmium or lead, and were somewhat less easy to recycle, but this is not the case with modern lithium cells. Driving your current car for longer might be better than buying a brand new EV, assuming your current car is really efficient, and assuming you don't live somewhere that already uses a lot of renewables for generation, and assuming you don't slap some solar panels on your house (which many EV owners already do). But, driving an old F150 for 300k miles is definitely, unequivocally worse than buying a new Tesla. It would also cost you nearly as much money, when you factor in the fuel costs. And, even then, you're assuming that your options are "trash my current car and buy an EV" or "keep driving my current car". You could also, say, sell your current car to someone else and put the proceeds toward buying an EV.

by x0054 12y ago

quotient 12y ago

The idea is that battery powered cars will become more prevalent and effectively cleaner as the electrical energy used to power them is drawn from more renewable sources, rather than from fossil fuels.

nawitus 12y ago

Your point should've been "transportation emissions are only a small share of total CO2 emissions". If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you should start by becoming a vegan.

falcolas 12y ago
> If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you should start by becoming a vegan. I'm going to regret this, I have no doubt. Vegan != no carbon footprint. In fact, I would imagine that when compared to a typical vegetarian diet, it is less carbon efficient. Isolation from animal (by)products means that food bound for vegans typically requires specialized handling and processing. Loss of efficiency gained from the economies of scale. Limited food processing means that food can not be easily stockpiled and distributed. This results in more frequent but smaller food shipments - the opposite direction you want to go for efficiency. The small intersection with the average person's diet also means that vegan foodstuffs don't gain any production efficiency when compared to, say, a vegetarian's diet. All of that, and vegan-bound foodstuffs still have to be planted, fertilized, harvested and transported.
- nawitus 12y ago
  >Vegan != no carbon footprint. Well, no sane person has claimed that. >In fact, I would imagine that when compared to a typical vegetarian diet, it is less carbon efficient. Your imagination is not consistent with reality/studies. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet >Isolation from animal (by)products means that food bound for vegans typically requires specialized handling and processing. The average vegan food is a lot more efficient than any animal product. An animal is just a biological machien which converts plant matter to animal products. You could take out the inefficient converter and just eat the plant directly. For example, 99% of soy in the United States is eaten by animals. >Limited food processing means that food can not be easily stockpiled and distributed. What? There's no special truck for vegan products. Supermarkets ship vegan and non-vegan products together. >All of that, and vegan-bound foodstuffs still have to be planted, fertilized, harvested and transported. Yeah. And because animals eat plants, the average omnivore consumes more plant matter than the average vegan.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "The average vegan food is a lot more efficient than any animal product. An animal is just a biological machien which converts plant matter to animal products. You could take out the inefficient converter and just eat the plant directly. For example, 99% of soy in the United States is eaten by animals." Not that this destroys your thesis, but some animals happily eat things humans won't. A pig fed leftovers is going to be more efficient than sending those leftovers to landfill. People don't eat much grass. &c. This is, of course, mostly irrelevant to how we actually feed ourselves in the developed world (where, for instance, pasture would serve other uses).

gamerdonkey 12y ago

Unfortunately, I don't have time for a more detailed response. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green

mrgriscom 12y ago

All else being equal, isn't a large fossil fuel power plant 2x more efficient than an ICE, simply from economies of scale from producing tons of power in one central place?

NickM 12y ago

This post highlights some persistent myths surrounding electric vehicles: 1) Even if you're using electricity derived 100% from burning coal, you're still causing less pollution than most gas-powered cars. This is because power plants are hugely, massively more efficient than internal combustion engines, and because it's much easier to filter pollution out of one big smokestack than thousands of small ones. Furthermore, even just refining oil into gasoline takes almost as much electricity as you'd need to power an EV directly. In the worst-case 100% coal scenario, certain fuel-efficient vehicles might be better than an EV in terms of carbon emissions, but in most real-world cases any EV is more environmentally friendly than any gasoline vehicle. This gap will only continue to widen as renewables continue to replace fossil fuel generation. 2) The production of lithium ion batteries doesn't cause significant environmental damage beyond what would otherwise go into building a gasoline car. There is some environmental damage caused by mining the required metals, but not nearly as much as the environmental damage caused by drilling for oil and refining it into gasoline. None of the materials involved are particularly exotic or toxic, and they are all easily recyclable, so the long-term damage here is pretty limited. Tesla uses batteries made of lithium, aluminum, carbon, and nickel. Older battery tech used toxic metals like cadmium or lead, and were somewhat less easy to recycle, but this is not the case with modern lithium cells. Driving your current car for longer might be better than buying a brand new EV, assuming your current car is really efficient, and assuming you don't live somewhere that already uses a lot of renewables for generation, and assuming you don't slap some solar panels on your house (which many EV owners already do). But, driving an old F150 for 300k miles is definitely, unequivocally worse than buying a new Tesla. It would also cost you nearly as much money, when you factor in the fuel costs. And, even then, you're assuming that your options are "trash my current car and buy an EV" or "keep driving my current car". You could also, say, sell your current car to someone else and put the proceeds toward buying an EV.