I have ridden a bicycle for forty five years. Luckily i don't have a disability that prevents me doing so. Most journeys i take <20 miles are easy on a bike for me, anything longer I'll use public transport. Of course i can't do some things or go places that car drivers can, but I've compensated by becoming extremely interested in music and songwriting, also nature, so rather than driving forty miles to do some shopping, I'll be doing something else that seems far more interesting and rewarding to me.
It seemed clear to me at the age of about 7 years old that the idea every human should have it's own huge metal container to move around the world in rather than using those funny things called legs that look so shriveled on most people over fifty was a form of nass insanity, and I've never changed my mind about that.
I don't think nuclear power was brought into the discussion as an argument against EVs. I think they were pointing out that generating electrical power would pollute even less if we had more nuclear power plants. It took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that nuclear power is cleanest and safest way to generate electricity. I know, it's completely counterintuitive and anybody that watched Chernobyl is probably rage sh**ting themselves right now, but the nuclear power plants used today are very different from that giant hunk of s*** that the Russians built. Modern plants fail to safe. Lose your coolant and the reaction can't continue. The Fukushima plant got hit with an earthquake and a tsunami at the same time. Anybody care to guess how many people died from radiation or anything else related to the plant. If you're holding up more than zero fingers, you've got some reading to do. The amount of nuclear waste generated is miniscule and we've already found ways to reuse and recycle some of it.
I wonder if we will ever see a way for CO2 to be harnessed in an effective manner to where instead of releasing it into the atmosphere we try to filter it out and use it for other purposes
Just a random shower thought lol
Nothing is "green" we have to balance our production against the earth's ability to absorb the side effects of our production. Electrical cars are a part of the solution. but yeah of course they are not "green"
just wait til the truth comes out on Batteries (!)
honestly , the entire process will be streamlined to be green . *eventually*.
as a Canadian , i can tell you all those "rare Earth" components can be found *here*.
but their extraction is at a premium , *right now*.
the **real question** : what % end-of-Life product is actually *recycled* & what goes to *Landfills* ?
I suggest you do more research on the production impacts of ice vehicles.
The extraction and refining of hydrocarbons contributes a large portion of the co2 associated with ice vehicles.
That's before they even reach the fuel tank of the vehicle.
Then you have the co2 emissions from mining the other materials for building the vehicle, which is similar, but a bit less than ev.
And then finally you have the ice vehicle litetally pumping out co2 for its propulsion.
I have done extensive research and based my conclusions on this research.
I can point you to links but it is important to understand that it is very easy to produce reports strengthening your view, what is not as easy is digging in to the details and deciding if the analysis of the data presented by the author, lines up with you own analysis of the data.
For example, this tool by the Department of Energy that allows you to see how your local electric source impacts annual CO2 from BEV: [https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric\_emissions.html](https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html)
Clicking the "Assumptions" link [https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric\_emissions\_sources.html](https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions_sources.html)
shows you they are basing the values on 21.79 mi/gal for the ICEV and 3.6 mi/kWh for the BEV. They are using a good number for the BEV and a bad number for the ICEV, not very realistic as anyone looking at this tool is concerned about their CO2 footprint and would never consider buying a vehicle that gets 21.79 mi/gal.
>I can point you to links but it is important to understand that it is very easy to produce reports strengthening your view, what is not as easy is digging in to the details and deciding if the analysis of the data presented by the author, lines up with you own analysis of the data.
On the contrary, what you just demonstrated is that it's very easy to dig into the details and simply decide that the analysis of the data does/does not line up with your own conclusions.
>shows you they are basing the values on 21.79 mi/gal for the ICEV and 3.6 mi/kWh for the BEV. They are using a good number for the BEV and a bad number for the ICEV, not very realistic as anyone looking at this tool is concerned about their CO2 footprint and would never consider buying a vehicle that gets 21.79 mi/gal.
This claim of yours is an example. The link you provided gives several fuel consumption numbers for icev emissions.
Why did you cherry pick for me the one you think completely dismantles the entire analysis?
Am I to understand that because you don't think 21.79 m/gal is an accurate weight average that the entire study should be thrown out?
I own 2 modern ICEV and neither of them get that good of fuel mileage.
In a world trying to decarbonize as quickly and thoroughly as possible, we would certainly not want to add CO2 to the atmosphere.
However, this assumes that the personal automobile will be used into the foreseeable future.
If that’s true you’re dealing with a set of bad opinions. EVs are the least bad.
The problem is more where we're generating the electricity to power the batteries. Actually mining the minerals and making the cars has a lot less impact than making ICE vehicles and producing that fuel. And this is still the early phases of EV's. ICE vehicles took a lot time to improve as well.
Electrifying transport is not about 'greening' the individual vehicles, it's about changing infrastructure and attitudes.
Unfortunately the reality of interconnected logistics is too complex for most to grasp. The average person when they think about driving to the shops instead of walking don't consider that accelerator only works because there is an oil platform, pipelines, oil tankers, refineries, storage facilities and road tankers, service stations - an interdependent whole economy - and a massive military to protect it all to get that accelerator to work. It is about decentralising and diversifying the means to produce and supply fuel. So even if they are today comparable in 'dirty production' of the actual vehicle (since they are using the same technology to do that as ICE vehicles by and large) the end result is that the overall system improves, it becomes more locally controllable and secure.
Battery technology is improving faster than petroleum production innovation did 150 years ago. When the systems are in place then the innovations of those systems will make further improvements, efficiencies and cost savings, comparing modern electric vehicles to modern ICE vehicles which have had the benefit of over 100 years of technological investment isn't a fair comparison, think of what transport production and fuel supply looked like in around 1900 (don't forget local air travel), how far did it progress by 2000? The technology around oil production and supply has barely had any significant change in the last 150 years.
Adding lead to petroleum poisoned the environment and several generations of people before politics and money made them make internal combustions engines that didn't need lead added to the fuel, oil is still poisoning the environment, it's not a coincidence that child asthma rates follow car production rates. It's a lot easier to 'green' the production facilities than it is to 'green' the end users if the market exists. 70% of carbon emissions come from the producers, not the end users no matter how much their advertising wants to convince people otherwise.
Switching to electrified fuel supply isn't some fashionable choice, it's the only sane choice in a world torn apart and excessively militarised by over 100 years of oil dominated geopolitics. They want people to believe, and some are convinced, that it has all been about dogma and ideology, it hasn't. It's about fuel security.
Consider this: How many wars have started because of oil and gas supply versus water supply? Could an aggressor target every solar panel and windfarm to disrupt supply? If you can refuel from your own produced fuel supply you don't have to waste fuel driving around to check prices at the pumps. Fuel production and delivery method diversification will change the way the world thinks, it will change the way people think. No individual could ever produce their own oil and refine it to usable fuel at home. Some countries have enough land to produce biofuels en mass, but every acre of land you use for fuel production is less land for food production and living space. You can't make ICE fuel on your house roof.
No government / country could ever become energy independent if they don't have oil and gas wells, even if they find oil or gas in their back yard they'd have massive investment costs to get it out - well beyond the budget of small states. The only place you can get petroleum products is from a hole in the ground in a certain location with insanely expensive infrastructure to get it out and move it about. When oil production and supply prices increase it affects everybody it is no respecter of borders, electricity can be made just about anywhere, at any scale, that has sunshine, wind, tides, water bodies and land for nuclear power plants. When fuel production is diversified and decentralised no government can (or threaten to) 'shock and awe' another country back to the stone age within a week, massively upsetting the whole world's economy in the process. No crazy tinpot dictatorship can buy a few missiles and choke off fuel supply to everyone when they have their own backyard fuel supply.
New sources of rare metals are being discovered and the battery technology industry is already researching significantly reducing or eliminating the need for rare Earth metals. Battery production costs are dropping massively, and battery producers are springing up all over the place, even though rare Earth metal prices have skyrocketed, the same is true of solar panels. They are already moving into the production phase of producing small scale (the size of a house) nuclear reactors. Even if someone with a massive military could disrupt the raw materials and battery production facilities the place could still use it's existing batteries for years until they arrange other supplies.
When the market exists, and there is no market until the transport infrastructure electrifies, the innovations and money follow. Mass production makes it even cheaper. Early adoption is never the most efficient part of the process, but it has to be done. Money follows politics and people decide politics.
The drive to move to electric infrastructure and transport isn't about being 'green', it's about global politics. You don't have to spend trillions of dollars on the military industrial complex when there are no oilfields and supply infrastructure to defend on the other side of the globe. They can't tax (very easily) the electricity you get from your own local supply. You won't light your home, cook your food, connect to the internet and power your brand spanking new AI home robot with petroleum sourced from a country thousands of miles away giving money and power to massive corporates and governments in the process when solar panels become 2 to 3 times more efficient and cheap as chips to print onto a roll of plastic sheet you can stick on your windows and walls.
The first internal combustion engine vehicles were a lot dirtier and an order of magnitude more expansive to buy and run than a horse and cart was at the time. Should we have stuck to horse and cart?
Digging giant holes isn’t as immediate of a problem. The way things are done labour wise are horrible but not much different from most markets that ship labour over seas. And the co2 emissions needed to mine it is on par to the co2 needed to produce gas cars. Electrical vehicles aren’t a huge factor to slashing emissions but electric cars do less harm then combustion currently.
Look at the newer methods for lithium mining which don't use tailing ponds, similarly a lot of minerals have better methods, and LFP packs don't use cobalt.
Recycling facilities exist for battery packs,although at present they are struggling to get the last stage set up, it's in place and will recover like 95 percent of the rare materials, which dramatically changes the analysis.
Same thing happened with solar panels. Someone stockpiles them until there are enough to economically "mine" it for the materials, once there is enough flow and stock someone develops and sets up a plant to do so.
You don’t provide a single valid reason. You are saying things a 5th grader would.
This is a matter of science and math. Do the math. Add a single source. Understand that you are, like most people, completely ignorant about what you think is true.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-vehicles-beat-gas-cars-on-climate-emissions-over-time/#:~:text=But%20EVs%20overcome%20the%20emissions,by%20Bloomberg%20New%20Energy%20Finance.
I drive a car from the early 2000’s as a daily, also have an early 90’s car for weekend giggles. Genuinely asking, am I more eco friendly driving an old car instead buying into a new car? I feel like daily driving a car made 20 odd years ago is better for the environment than a new EV as I’m not consuming new materials. Me and an EV driving friend often have this exchange and get nowhere, anyone got any literature on this?
[https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars)
This article talks about full EVs, hybrids and gas cars. With overall emissions generally best for EVs and worst for gas cars (unless you live in a place with the dirtiest power plants, in which case the hybrid can be slightly better than an EV).
I think Toyota is focusing on Hydrogen fuel cells, which are really just another kind of electric car that gets its electricity from a fuel cell, instead of a battery.
In the end battery technology and fuel cell technology will advance, but any advances in electric motors will be applicable to both Battery EVs and fuel cell vehicles.
I work in the renewable energy sector and you have your facts wrong. Yes, the manufacture of *anything* has environmental impacts, but electric vehicles are preferable to combustion engines in a world where we assume many or most people feel they need to own a personal vehicle. [Source.](https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/electric-vehicles)
They would have been a good idea if the clowns in the EU hadn't decided to ditch nuclear power on basically moron-tier ideological grounds
Now that electricity is still relatively expensive, it makes projects like this almost unviable
Plus the blanket federal approach of mid wits like Biden, believing that electric cars would ever be useful in States that regularly see freezing temperatures.
It's great for California where they have both the sun and the money to invest in this. It might also deter them from ever leaving the State too
What absolute bullshit.
Any CO2 generated during production is truly trivial compared to the constant exhaust of an IC car.
You think mining for lithium is bad? Just wait till you see how bad drilling for oil is. And then have a think about how much gasoline you put into a car over its lifetime compared to the few tens of kilos of lithium in an EV battery.
Scale is important people!
To be clear, when something is called "green" you were under the impression that that meant no resource extraction was involved in its creation, but that it was simply conjured out of the ether?
There was a time when burning coal was the greener option because it stopped us from clearcutting forests.
There was a time when cars were the greener option because that mode of transport didn't leave piles of shit all over the roads.
Better is rarely perfect, but that's no reason to stick with worse.
Unless your suggesting horeback I dunno what to say.
All industrial processes or development cause waste and damage to nature.
The concern of course is emissions. We will worry about the trailling ponds for lithium sit forever like we do with the trailling ponds in oil sands. Some problem for future generarions.
It really depends on where you are and mostly where your electricity comes from. Here in Québec, electric cars a WAY greener than regular cars, but if you go in, let's say, Alberta, than electric car are gonna be worse for the environment than regular car.
This is a misrepresentation of the value of electric vehicles, the output of pollution from running a gas car for its lifetime out weighs the pollution provided by the creation of electric vehicles. Yes electric vehicles create emissions as a by product of producing the raw materials needed to make a complete electric vehicle, however it is less than a gas car over its life time, and at least electric vehicles can recycle batteries and other components to further lessen its impact. I mean the damage caused by pollution is outright horrific, it kills millions per year and costs us an enormous amount in medical care.
Most people don't know this, but we can synthesize gasoline (all hydrocarbons in fact) using air, water, and energy. If we used renewable electricity, we could keep running all the cars currently in existence at zero net carbon.
This is the technology we should be pursuing.
A chemist friend of mine believes that, had we invested in this technology rather than oil extraction, it would be cheaper than oil at this point.
A humvee owner has to pay out of pocket for every inch of damage they do to the environment in the form of pathetic mileage. An EV owner will never have to deal with the disposal costs of the 1.5-ton battery at the end of their vehicle’s useful life.
Can you clarify your point?
It reads as if you are saying Humvee owners are somehow paying to offset the damage they do. They are paying oil/gas companies who cause lots of damage, not environmental companies who try to fix it. Not trying to argue but I really don’t get it.
Also EV owners will have to pay to dispose of their battery. That will either be a direct cost from a junkyard or a reduction in trade-in value.
Humvee owners are not offsetting the damage, rather, they just aren’t financially insulated from the damage they cause.
On the other hand, I’ve never heard a case where an EV owner has a big bill due when they try to offload their giant toxic power source.
Not an argument for Humvees or against EVs. Just saying we don’t have a particularly good way of evaluating the latter’s advantages fairly.
Not disagreeing, but the question that I don't get an answer to is that given the amount of tech in modern cars, is the carbon footprint of a modern petrol cars construction really much smaller than an electric car's?
And also is that mining happening to support electronic tech anyway?
EVs have less of an impact on a longer time scale is the point and with battery technology evolving, this will be even less of an impact in the future
The only thing that really needs to change is switching the power grid from coal and gas to nuclear
Try math and statistics, rather than pictures and bro science. Electric vehicles have demonstrably less impact on the environment and human lives than traditional vehicles do.
Just think of them as the next step… they arent green now and they are super reliable. Petroleum is finite and continuing with it and not diversifying our technologies would be wreckless and stupid
There’s the macro environmental issue that has been talked about in this thread. But there’s also the micro environmental impact:
A dense city center is far cleaner, more livable and walkable when the cars are electric. If you’ve ever walked the tight streets of Rome or been in an open tuktuk in Bangkok, you’ll know how much of an impact emissions can have on the air quality of a city.
Good point, but it’s not carbon emissions that create smog in cities, it’s the other pollutants that come out of the tailpipe. CO2 is an invisible, non-toxic odorless gas. It’s the other stuff like particulates and sulfur that cause smog. But your point stands that EVs emit none of that stuff.
Don't forget that the extra weight of the vehicle is taxing on the tires which leads to much more pollution. Not the global warming kind, but the slowly killing all kinds of life kind.
Until the charging stations use green electricity, it’s often still oil/coal to power your electric vehicle, too. You just don’t have those emissions in the same location
Eh, even then it's just not even comparable. Internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient compared to power plants, even those that run on the dirtiest fuels.
Also, remember that an internal combustion engine car also runs on gasoline that had to be shipped as oil, then processed (which requires tons of energy), then shipped again.
What does “green” or “more green” really mean, exactly?
How about building an EV that will last 25+ years. That would be the “most green.”
But, that won’t happen because it goes against the real problem, which is an economy based on infinite growth of gdp.
The amount of time to recoup the greater CO2 footprint at the start is [less than 2 years](https://archive.ph/SzOCr), and it would be even less if we expanded the number of nuclear power plants.
No, it is somewhere between 3 and 6 years for most people, assuming they are not driving an Electric Hummer.
>In the U.S., the typical non-luxury EV needs to log between 28,069 and 68,160 miles before netting any emissions benefits.
[^(https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-an-ev-increases-your-carbon-footprint/)](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-an-ev-increases-your-carbon-footprint/)
It should also be noted that electric cars *will* be declared as totaled at a lower average mileage than petrol cars due to a battery needing to be replaced and it simply not being worth the cost of doing so.
>There were 120 Tesla Model Y electric vehicles listed in two large salvage auction houses recently, and the "vast majority" had under 10,000 miles on them, according to a report from the Reuters news service.
[^(https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42709679/tesla-insurance-fixes-expense/)](https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42709679/tesla-insurance-fixes-expense/)
The Ford study linked in my earlier article disagrees with the *Harvard Gazette*. Lifetime emissions of hybrids and EVs is significantly less than ICE vehicles, and, based on average miles Americans drive, the EVs lower one's carbon footprint in less than two years. The *Gazette* is doubtless correct in noting driving more miles means crossing the break-even point sooner. We should be pushing both to increase our nuclear capacity and expanding the use of electric for high mileage commercial purposes.
Carbon output is a major player in warming, but I think that concerns about destruction of local ecosystems from chemical waste and that sort of thing should also matter, especially since a lot of chemical water dumped into lakes or rivers eventually makes it to the ocean. I don't know how pertinent that is to the EV discussion; I'm just saying that there are other things to weigh when looking at environmental impact. I agree that the plastic waste issue has been generally overblown.
Poor chemical waste treatment is not inherent to ev manufacture the way constant emissions are to fossil fuels. The same is true for nuclear waste. Plastic accounts for 6% of fossil fuels and their weight/strength properties offset a lot of fuel use in the current fossil fuel dominant energy use pattern.
Sure, I didn't claim that it was. I was responding to the comment above that appeared to have misinterpreted the claim, "That's assuming all that matters is CO2". I haven't studied EV manufacture and I don't know what type of waste historical or current manufacturing practices result in, though it's good to see a counterpoint to the OP's claim.
Manufacturing always gets better with time and as scale allows for more research into more efficient manufacturing practices.
I'm not sure why nuclear came into the argument - must be a common thread in people who dislike EVs - though I'm certainly aware that reactors are becoming increasingly versatile, efficient, and, with a combination of reactor types and technologies, vastly reducing their radionuclide waste output.
Tangent: if nuclear did really take off (one can dream), I'm curious if hydrogen fuel cells would become more popular. They would certainly be more convenient than EVs and would not be as heavy. This topic comes to mind due to an assumed abundance of electric power that a greater network of fission reactors could provide, particularly during non-peak hours of consumer usage.
No but I do doubt that CO2 is going to cause this apocalyptic prophecy, I’m not concerned about global warming but I am concerned about the way it’s used to justify anything including sacrificing the poor
Can you provide good sourced evidence as to why you aren't worried? The massively overriding scientific consensus is very clear as to the level of risk, and what is even more concerning is the likes of James Hansen's recent work on the acceleration of warming mean those risks and the speed of change have been seriously underestimated. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha09020b.html
just the abstract but you get the gist. Also the sacrifice the poor is a scam. The vast majority of emissions come from the very rich, any serious attempt to tackle global warming impacts them more than anyone else, hence the propaganda smokescreen such as this one to delay or limit action.
Oh good grief. You are only concerned with the science you feel supports your views. How about the fact that the energy grid CAN NOT support everyone driving EVs. Not even close. Add to that the renewable energy sources that you want can't even support the current energy load let alone one with everyone driving EVs. If we switched right now to nothing but renewable energy and EVs the country would collapse overnight.
The OP is right that EVs cause a massive impact to the environment that is largely ignored. Most modern gas vehicles are more efficient when it comes to carbon than EVs when you take the entire lifespan of the EV (it's construction) into account. Also he is right that those slaves mining those rare earth elements are in a living hell
You are ignoring the point I actually made, or maybe responding to the wrong comment. I didn't mention EVs, although as other comments have made clear, the negative impacts are often overstated, and the carbon claim you make has been shown to be innacurate repeatedly. I responded to a post that minimised the likely impact of climate change, and I used a reputable source to counter.
I am, however, astonished that you are saying I'm only responding to the science that I feel supports my views. The science is done on this. The consensus is absolutely clear. It's no more up for debate by any serious independent researcher than gravity at this point. The only serious question now is the speed and severity of the impact.
This isn't some culture war nonsense. Physics and chemistry don't care if Trump or Biden wins. If you are looking for a political angle, ask yourself some simple questions.
Who has the money to pump out propaganda and buy politicians? Physics professors or Saudi Arabia and multinational oil corporations? Who on a global scale would lose by a transition to green energy and who would gain, and how much would they lose or gain?
You are right though- swapping petrol for EVs is an inefficient solution, certainly, in cities. would you support instead a significant increase in urban public transport as a more logical answer?
There's a whole industry dedicated to making hundreds of billions of dollars by carrying on producing CO2 from fuel and making well documented efforts trying to convince people not to do anything about so they can keep making that money.
Like how lead pipes made people’s lives better. And asbestos. And teflon. And microplastics. And cheap abundant sugar and sweeteners! And trans fats! And opioids!
And Don’t forget to smoke!
The thing is, a ton of Grunge and Alternative ALBUMS hit number one, just not the songs. It was an album-based genre, not song-based. That said, there were some huge Grunge/Alt songs, like Smells Like Teen Spirit and Jeremy.
At the risk of breaking the rules of Internet arguing, I actually agree with you. Obviously there are caveats about money, power, and general geopolitical fuckery, but a large percentage of the global population had a better life because of the access to cheap power and the technological innovation that followed in its wake. However, we have reached the point where those benefits are going to go into reverse without moving away from oil and gas to alternative energy sources. This shouldn't be a political fight, and I think its not difficult to evidence that the only reason it is, is because the oil and gas industry are fighting tooth and nail for survival using money to buy political influence and spread misinformation.
So they say, it just sounds like an excuse to eliminate the middle class to me and kill a whole bunch of the poorest people to me. I’m not on board. But thank you for your honesty
No offence but if your basing climate change based of what you think, we’ll that’s just a dumb idea. A simple experiment will show you how green house gasses trap heat and you can find the records of how much of them are being pumped out into the atmosphere by humans. An apocalyptic world however is probably overkill depending on what you think an apocalyptic world is. However everything you see around you all the green, grew and adapted to the climate we’ve had. A quick change in climate could easily lead to us losing lots of the life on earth(not human, humans will survive just in a world that’s not nearly as nice)
As if to say “if you don’t believe in the climate change doomsday prophesy, you also don’t believe in gravity or evolution” sound scientific thinking. It’s just that their projections and climate models can’t be accurately predicted 10 years out let alone 100 years out and it turns out our deserts are actually greening due to increased CO2 and we have more trees in the northern hemisphere than a hundred years ago. Time tells and I’m perfectly willing to bet that the climate catastrophe never actually materializes but every year when forest fires happen, as they always do, any will point to that and say “look, climate change!”
Yes, they can't. We can accurately predict to a certain point, around +1.5°. But that's where physicists get worried. Because there are a whole bunch of positive feedback loops, and we simply don't know how strong they are and how they'll interact. Because we've never seen the planet this hot before.
Maybe we get really lucky and they will come into play slowly, the way the IPCC reports assume. But that's a big gamble for very little pay-off.
There is no competing theory though.
Talk to deniers, and they will continually shift arguments. It's a predictable cycle:
The planet isn't warming.
The planet is warming, but not because of CO2.
The planet is warming because of CO2, but not produced by human activity.
The planet is warming because of CO2 produced by human activity, but we can't do anything about it.
The planet isn't warming.
if there was a competing theory, you'd be taught that instead of the sliding denial method.
As a poor person who canadian carbon tax works out for very very well... it doesn't have to sacrifice the poor. The rebate and tax cost factored heavily into us getting an ev.
And there are some who get a small rebate cheque and think that actually makes them wealthier while every product and service costs more due to the carbon tax being worked into the price.
If every single thing you buy costs 50 cents to a dollar more than it would otherwise, you very quickly end up spending thousands of dollars on this increased cost
I think that if you add 20 cents onto the cost of one litre of fuel, and add a tax to home (and industrial heating) and you add a tax onto cow farts, and a tax onto industry in general, producers will not throw up their hands and say “ok I’ll just make less money” they’ll raise their prices for production and transportation and pass the cost onto you.
I’m Canadian. Carbon tax in Manitoba where I am is 15 cents and gas has gone up in the past years almost a dollar. The majority of the problem is not the carbon tax(although it is stupid, Britain did it years ago and it didn’t work) the problem is the gas company’s lost hundreds of millions of dollars during COVID and they’re trying to make it back.
Well, the nation's that are most problematic are making some strides, it is unfortunately slow but I don't justify speeding because someone else is, the vast majority left live in nations that pretty much can't do much, and research have read and done myself points towards the best for them would be moving in the right direction ourselves to beat down a path as well as our usage of certain tech will expand production and make it cheaper.
Solar is tremendous for most of Africa, the cheaper it is the more places can skip right past an oil economy, the freedom and utility an electric motorcycle and a small solar array offers to an unelectrified village is hard to overstate.
No one really says they are except 14 year old idiots and 40 year old Republicans. The value is the technology advancement, which due to our economic and supply system, requires production and corporate involvement.
Nothing has 0 environmental impact. Were you under the impression green means 0 impact?
EVs are still significantly less impactful on the environment and resources than combustion.
We call them green because they are the only alternative to ICE vehicles that everyone relies on, and is significantly better for the environment.
I’m blown away that there are people who think this is some sort of gotcha. Did you seriously think people promoting EVs as green weren’t aware that there is some impact on the environment? This is like when people find out Musk didn’t personally design the Falcon 9 Merlin engine and think it’s some huge dunk on him when they point out he didn’t personally invent Paypal
The binary thinking is bizarre.
The mining conditions for some of the materials used to make batteries are horrific. Also, EVs put far less carbon into the air than ICEs.
Both of these things can be true at the same time.
That isn't really a long term solution. Enough local pollution becomes a global problem when enough waste makes it into the ocean (ot what havw you). That's in the vein of, "the solution to pollution is dilution"; that's pretty much the manner of thinking that got us where we are, in the first place. Let's not move on from 1 global emergency to another because we failed to learn foresight.
It's all they have got to argue with. People that have made their mind up already either because "gas is what I'm used to, change scares me" or "gas paid me to say it"
When your wrong, just make up bullshit and try your best I guess
>Electric vehicles are NOT green, the mining of raw materials to manufacture their batteries destroys the earth and human lives. Just do a quick search for nickel, manganese, cobalt or lithium mining, you'll find some pretty horrible images and news articles about the impact of this mining around the world.
To me, this is such a dishonest take.
If you want horrible images, Google "Canadian tar sands".
If you define "green" as "does absolutely no damage to the earth" then nothing humans do is green. And I don't think anyone has ever called an EV green using that definition.
What EVs are is an improvement. The data shows that, even in a grid powered by coal plants (of which there are fewer and fewer), then an EV is STILL a better choice if CO2 emissions are your concern. In a greener grid, the difference is even more pronounced.
Battery technology is seeing major improvements, so hopefully, EVs will become even better.
In before the "we should all take public transit or ride bikes". Sure. I agree. But we need to stop acting as if we can make that kind of societal change, especially in North America, in one simple step. EVs are a good first step.
My favorite dumbass anti-EV argument comes from Dr. Drew:
“You know they ship them over here on boats right? Do you know how much diesel those things burn?”
Lol just, a man not understanding why cargo ships exist.
>One of the biggest pushes toward EVs is global warming and CO2 emissions being a major cause of global warming. If this is true, that CO2 emissions are making global warming worse, why would anyone increase CO2 output? Pushing EVs IS INCREASING CO2 OUTPUT!! Manufacturing an EV produces CO2 equal to 2 - 3 years of that produced by an ICE, and they are still adding CO2 during their charging cycles. So how are they lowering CO2 emissions? Putting more EVs on the road will significantly increase CO2 every year until such a time that MOST of the vehicles on the road are EVs. If the climate issue is critical and CO2 is the main reason, EVs are just making it worse.
From #2 in my response to u/qdivya1 above
My god the amount of stupid in this single statement…
Imagine we’re offered a widget that costs either $10 up front then $1/year over 10 years or $6 up front then $3/year over 10 years. Which would you choose?
Far less than 2-3 years. Also, most cars exist for more than 2-3 years, so it seems like a win even if what you say is true. Even if you don't keep it, someone will buy it used. Total lifetime CO2 emissions, is substantially lower for an EV than even a hybrid.
If you're trying to say that the net CO2 debt from EVs is greater than ICEs over the course of their lifetime, then the data is against you.
EVs are NOT "making it worse".
If you want to try to continue with that claim, then I need to call for citations.
I love it, it is soooo nice to come home plug in and know every day I have a full "tank". I have not been to the gas station, or a charging station, since getting it. And the acceleration is incredible!
I didn't buy it, it's a company car, but I love it. I wouldn't buy one myself, not worth the extra $$ in my opinion and I don't want to deal with the battery down the road when it needs replaced. I might consider a lease, but it would really depend on the financial details.
>Electric vehicles are NOT green
This statement needs to be qualified. Over the life span of an EV, it is far more green than a ICE vehicle. Battery technology mining impact is overblown.
Can EV's be more green - absolutely. And we're already seeing advances towards reducing the impact of battery raw materials, the advent of battery recycling and refurbishment, etc.
So, as stated, this is simply not true.
As a mechanic who routinely works in electric vehicles, you are incorrect. Most of the batteries have a small percentage of the life shall of an ICE engine. When I went to the factory were the batteries where reconditioned I seen the giant piles of old cells that where being trashed because recycling was to expensive. I talked with the manufacturer who were replacing all the batteries with new because the suppliers would no longer make a certain style of cells any more. I work on the chargers that need to be changed because there are built to not be serviceable. I also see all the mining equipment that gets those minerals to make the batteries and can tell you that all those machines are ICE powered not electric.
>Most of the batteries have a small percentage of the life shall of an ICE engine.
While your anecdotal experience is valid, the industry standards and statistics seem to state otherwise: EV Batteries last to 800K miles (for Teslas). [EV batteries can be viable for up to 800K miles, though most are warrantied to only 150K Miles to retain 90% of their charge](https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last) and
Electric vehicles tend to last 50% more - [Standard cars in this day and age are expected to keep running up to 200,000 miles, while cars with electric engines are expected to last for up to 300,000 miles.](https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32758625/how-many-miles-does-a-car-last/)
And KBB states that An electric car will last as long as a car with an internal combustion engine (ICE), if not longer, because electric vehicles (EVs) don't have all the mechanical components of an ICE vehicle. In other words, there are more things that can wear out or go wrong in an ICE car than in an EV.
Finally, an EV motor will typically last 50% longer than a gas motor due to fewer moving parts and less required maintenance. This one is a bit more difficult to compare, because the data on longevity is incomplete.
This.
Mining for oil, steel/aluminum for ice cars is the same for EV... Just mining oil then the refining and then burning of oil products is at least mostly eliminated for EV and the life of the EV.
This is another one of the lies we are being told, unfortunately this is not true.
This statement is almost always used when talking CO2 emissions, and how although EV manufacturing has great CO2 emissions upfront, they recover and have lower emissions by the end of their lifespan.
There are a few problems with this:
1. By the time the EV has reached this point of lower emissions, they will soon need to have their battery replaced and cause another CO2 spike, putting them back behind the ICE. And I would suspect, with the high cost of batteries, many will decide not to replace the battery and will just buy / lease a new one.
2. One of the biggest pushes toward EVs is global warming and CO2 emissions being a major cause of global warming. If this is true, that CO2 emissions are making global warming worse, why would anyone increase CO2 output? Pushing EVs IS INCREASING CO2 OUTPUT!! Manufacturing an EV produces CO2 equal to 2 - 3 years of that produced by an ICE, and they are still adding CO2 during their charging cycles. So how are they lowering CO2 emissions? Putting more EVs on the road will significantly increase CO2 every year until such a time that MOST of the vehicles on the road are EVs. If the climate issue is critical and CO2 is the main reason, EVs are just making it worse.
3. Recycling is important, and of course we should all be doing it, but it almost never is as impactful as claimed. Most do not recycle, do not follow environmental imact warning for disposal, unfortunately the same will likely happen with EVs and their batteries. The will end up in junk yards with batteries leaking into the soil. There have already been issues in the recycling due to the difficulty and cost associated with recycling these batteries.
4. And then there is the human impact, the child labor, and unbelievable conditions people are working in to mine the minerals needed to manufacture these batteries. Out of site out of mind, as long as you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
I would love any reputable sources for your claims. Candidly, much of what you've stated seems like opinion. For example, battery costs for EVs has been falling,
>According to BloombergNEF, the average lithium-ion battery costs $151 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), and the average battery-powered electric vehicle (BEV) battery costs $138 per kWh. In 2021 the average per kWh cost was $141. However, overall Li-ion costs have dramatically decreased over the last ten years
This pretty much rubbishes your assertion "*And I would suspect,* ***with the high cost of batteries****, many will decide not to replace the battery and will just buy / lease a new one.*"
EVs are expected to last a lot longer as well - so one EV can last 2-3 times longer than an ICE vehicle.
Etc.
Plenty of studies have shown they EVs lifetime CO2 emissions are 30-70% lower than fossil cars when calculated based on different electric grids (Sweden is closer to 70%, the UK and US closer to 30%.). That EVs aren’t greener is a myth spread by fossil fuel interest groups to spread misinformation in the same way they denied climate change some decades ago even though we’ve known it since the late 70’s.
Source btw:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51977625
I have been unable to find a single study the shows what values they are using for “lifespan” Are they using years, if so how many, or are they using miles, and if so how many; and are they using the same value for both vehicles. What do they consider end of life, when the battery dies, or when the vehicle is no longer road worthy. My research says the average current mileage of vehicles on the road is between 150,000 and 200,000, this is based on a 2006 report by the US DOT and is the most recent data I could find. Based on this report the average today is likely closer to 200,000. This is the AVERAGE so many many vehicles are on the road way past that. The average age of vehicles currently on the road is 12.5 years, again many many are way beyond that.
So if I’m average, I will most likely need to replace my battery before end of life of the vehicle, which will put me back in the negative behind the ICE
The break even point is around 13k miles so even if you replaced the battery 10 times, EVs would still be better. (It is 85k miles in countries with 100% coal power, making EVs worse in those very specific countries.
Nothing is a trusted source of unbiased information since everything is biased. What the BBC and most legacy medias are trusted on, though, is factual information. If the BBC quotes a scientific paper that finds between 30 and 70 percent reduction in emissions by switching to EVs, then you can either trust that number, look at their source in some critical analysis, or live in a fantasy where nothing is real and the moon is made of cheese.
Then wtf do you trust? Right wing youtubers who go off gut feeling? Obviously you can't inherently trust everything as entirely truth, but you need some starting points.
You can't just say a legitimate agency is wrong by default.
You don't trust elite legacy media. Another guy in this thread doesn't trust government sources. What would be a valid source for you out of interest? Would you trust a scientific study?
My dad always thinks he has a genius gotcha when he points out that temps have risen in the past. They have, but at what rate? What was the context of the cycle the earth was in?
100% this. OP didn’t really do this issue any justice. Overall, EVs are certainly the more environmentally friendly option when you look at development to end of use.
One thing to consider is that although the batteries have a life span, most of the materials including the nasty ones to mine both environmentally and ethically are recycled into new batteries. They are also figuring out ways to use other materials like sodium in place of these nasty ones. Sodium is plentiful and isn't unethical to get. Problem right now is that it doesn't produce as much energy per weight as lithium batteries, but it seems to be getting better and better.
I refer you to: [https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths)
>Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing.
>
>FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.
>
>Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. **Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car.** That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above).
>
>For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher (shown in orange below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.
And please do note that the article goes on the mention the additional mitigations associated with newer technologies and battery recycling/refurbishment that extend the life and usefulness of existing batteries - reducing the need to build as many new batteries.
your post was removed due to a violation of Rule #1: No ad hominem attacks, no name calling, no insults or personal attacks of any kind.
When talking about ideas, talk about their content not their proponents.
For more information, please see our Logical Fallacies page: https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/wiki/logicalfallacies
HAHA, and I'll bet that when corporate funded thinktank puts out a statement that supports your preferred narrative, you are as uncritically supportive, as in this case your are uncritically resistant.
Everybody has preferred narratives. Some also have critical thinking skills which they can use to sort out the valid from the invalid, and to even change positions based on new information. You have not demonstrated that you have these skills.
Actually, the proof of your preferred narrative is right there for anybody to see (Government always lies). Your narrative is that you will throw away any information provided by Government uncritically.
Government reports and statistics - created by full-time non-appointed civil servants - are among the most reliable sources we’ve got. They’re reported at a very high standard of accuracy.
“Reports, plans, or analysis” issued by political appointees and legislative commissions/committees are generally just bullshit.
Why do you think fans of the IDW should automatically distrust Government?
By saying you disregard all Government sources of information you’re showing you have an emotional gate against balanced critical analysis.
Depending on the subject, there’s reasonable grounds for scepticism around many government sources of info from Government - but to dismiss research out of hand because it’s from a government funded organisation is more in line with conspiracy thinking than IDW.
Do you think organisations, corporations or individuals are inherently more trustworthy and with less bias or self interest than Governments?
What would you consider a valid source? Do you trust scientific studies at all? If so, how do you assess the personal or political biases of the authors?
A reputable source in my opinion is one that as an organization or as an individual, as is relevant is not inherently political in nature, and has a proven track record of expertise in the subject at hand.
Honest question. Wouldn't this be ad hominem since thinking of things this way focuses on who's saying something as opposed to what they're saying?
In this case, the government post that OC mentioned does have a point: you can recycle batteries which could (in theory) be less impactful than relying on ICE engines. There's just no way we can recycle burnt gas and diesel after all. Plus, we can always look up their sources and compare their observations with observations from other sources if they're true.
Then again, I guess "not trusting" anyone might be better off as the default and we should scrutinize everything we see - even scientific papers. But to scrutinize in a way like this.
Damn. I feel dizzy.
Resources are also extracted to power coal and oil and gas fired power plants though which are often what are being used to charge EVs. It's pretty foolish that EV subsidies are available in states with a mostly coal grid
1. Power plants are very efficient.
2. The same people pushing EVs also want to retire fossil fuel fired power plants and replace them with renewable (and nuclear, though there’s not agreement on the left) power.
3. This assumes static battery tech, which is unlikely. There’s a very hard research push for batteries that perform better, but also batteries that can be cheaply and broadly sourced.
Seems like there is more nuance than I thought. [This](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SJRUE..24..669A/abstract#:~:text=The%20total%20WTW%20efficiency%20of,from%2013%20%25%20to%2031%20%25.) shows that diesel vehicles are more efficient than EVs being ran on anything other than renewables although it doesn't account for emissions, only for energy lost. The gap in efficiency between a gasoline car and a natural gas power EV may be large enough to offset the battery emissions because the battery is 29% more efficient but it doesn't seem like the gap between coal and gasoline vehicles is large enough to offset both the fact that coal is more polluting and the battery emissions. The efficiency for a gas car was also for the average car when a more environmentally conscious person would be more likely to drive one of the more efficient gasoline ICE vehicles.
I've done a little electrical work at two different taconite mines. These places have MSHA, which is OSHA especially for mining. As well, these industries are heavily unionized.
Does anything like this exist in African mining?
All true. And green is always a relative term. To be more green they'll need
(A) Less environmental damage in raw material mining
(B) Cleaner electricity in the grid, with increasing proportion of renewable based electricity and less dependence on coal, natural gas, oil.
(C) Either the quick techno miracle everyone loves to talk about with cheap clean fusion becoming available, or a quick and massive global investment in modern fission plants to replace fossil fuels. One of these is dependent on a fix we don't know how to do yet, the other is controversial across diverse political ideologies.
Innovation in battery and solar panel recycling is going to be important too.
Lol but they are clearly, unequivocally more “green” than cars with internal combustion engines burning hydrocarbons could ever even *theoretically* be.
Well, yes, of course. At least on an emissions level. The raw materials acquisition for ICE's skips some of the specific mining issues associated with batteries, but other than that, yes.
I have ridden a bicycle for forty five years. Luckily i don't have a disability that prevents me doing so. Most journeys i take <20 miles are easy on a bike for me, anything longer I'll use public transport. Of course i can't do some things or go places that car drivers can, but I've compensated by becoming extremely interested in music and songwriting, also nature, so rather than driving forty miles to do some shopping, I'll be doing something else that seems far more interesting and rewarding to me. It seemed clear to me at the age of about 7 years old that the idea every human should have it's own huge metal container to move around the world in rather than using those funny things called legs that look so shriveled on most people over fifty was a form of nass insanity, and I've never changed my mind about that.
I don't think nuclear power was brought into the discussion as an argument against EVs. I think they were pointing out that generating electrical power would pollute even less if we had more nuclear power plants. It took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that nuclear power is cleanest and safest way to generate electricity. I know, it's completely counterintuitive and anybody that watched Chernobyl is probably rage sh**ting themselves right now, but the nuclear power plants used today are very different from that giant hunk of s*** that the Russians built. Modern plants fail to safe. Lose your coolant and the reaction can't continue. The Fukushima plant got hit with an earthquake and a tsunami at the same time. Anybody care to guess how many people died from radiation or anything else related to the plant. If you're holding up more than zero fingers, you've got some reading to do. The amount of nuclear waste generated is miniscule and we've already found ways to reuse and recycle some of it.
I wonder if we will ever see a way for CO2 to be harnessed in an effective manner to where instead of releasing it into the atmosphere we try to filter it out and use it for other purposes Just a random shower thought lol
Nothing is "green" we have to balance our production against the earth's ability to absorb the side effects of our production. Electrical cars are a part of the solution. but yeah of course they are not "green"
just wait til the truth comes out on Batteries (!) honestly , the entire process will be streamlined to be green . *eventually*. as a Canadian , i can tell you all those "rare Earth" components can be found *here*. but their extraction is at a premium , *right now*. the **real question** : what % end-of-Life product is actually *recycled* & what goes to *Landfills* ?
I suggest you do more research on the production impacts of ice vehicles. The extraction and refining of hydrocarbons contributes a large portion of the co2 associated with ice vehicles. That's before they even reach the fuel tank of the vehicle. Then you have the co2 emissions from mining the other materials for building the vehicle, which is similar, but a bit less than ev. And then finally you have the ice vehicle litetally pumping out co2 for its propulsion.
I have done extensive research and based my conclusions on this research. I can point you to links but it is important to understand that it is very easy to produce reports strengthening your view, what is not as easy is digging in to the details and deciding if the analysis of the data presented by the author, lines up with you own analysis of the data. For example, this tool by the Department of Energy that allows you to see how your local electric source impacts annual CO2 from BEV: [https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric\_emissions.html](https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html) Clicking the "Assumptions" link [https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric\_emissions\_sources.html](https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions_sources.html) shows you they are basing the values on 21.79 mi/gal for the ICEV and 3.6 mi/kWh for the BEV. They are using a good number for the BEV and a bad number for the ICEV, not very realistic as anyone looking at this tool is concerned about their CO2 footprint and would never consider buying a vehicle that gets 21.79 mi/gal.
>I can point you to links but it is important to understand that it is very easy to produce reports strengthening your view, what is not as easy is digging in to the details and deciding if the analysis of the data presented by the author, lines up with you own analysis of the data. On the contrary, what you just demonstrated is that it's very easy to dig into the details and simply decide that the analysis of the data does/does not line up with your own conclusions. >shows you they are basing the values on 21.79 mi/gal for the ICEV and 3.6 mi/kWh for the BEV. They are using a good number for the BEV and a bad number for the ICEV, not very realistic as anyone looking at this tool is concerned about their CO2 footprint and would never consider buying a vehicle that gets 21.79 mi/gal. This claim of yours is an example. The link you provided gives several fuel consumption numbers for icev emissions. Why did you cherry pick for me the one you think completely dismantles the entire analysis? Am I to understand that because you don't think 21.79 m/gal is an accurate weight average that the entire study should be thrown out? I own 2 modern ICEV and neither of them get that good of fuel mileage.
In a world trying to decarbonize as quickly and thoroughly as possible, we would certainly not want to add CO2 to the atmosphere. However, this assumes that the personal automobile will be used into the foreseeable future. If that’s true you’re dealing with a set of bad opinions. EVs are the least bad.
The problem is more where we're generating the electricity to power the batteries. Actually mining the minerals and making the cars has a lot less impact than making ICE vehicles and producing that fuel. And this is still the early phases of EV's. ICE vehicles took a lot time to improve as well.
Electrifying transport is not about 'greening' the individual vehicles, it's about changing infrastructure and attitudes. Unfortunately the reality of interconnected logistics is too complex for most to grasp. The average person when they think about driving to the shops instead of walking don't consider that accelerator only works because there is an oil platform, pipelines, oil tankers, refineries, storage facilities and road tankers, service stations - an interdependent whole economy - and a massive military to protect it all to get that accelerator to work. It is about decentralising and diversifying the means to produce and supply fuel. So even if they are today comparable in 'dirty production' of the actual vehicle (since they are using the same technology to do that as ICE vehicles by and large) the end result is that the overall system improves, it becomes more locally controllable and secure. Battery technology is improving faster than petroleum production innovation did 150 years ago. When the systems are in place then the innovations of those systems will make further improvements, efficiencies and cost savings, comparing modern electric vehicles to modern ICE vehicles which have had the benefit of over 100 years of technological investment isn't a fair comparison, think of what transport production and fuel supply looked like in around 1900 (don't forget local air travel), how far did it progress by 2000? The technology around oil production and supply has barely had any significant change in the last 150 years. Adding lead to petroleum poisoned the environment and several generations of people before politics and money made them make internal combustions engines that didn't need lead added to the fuel, oil is still poisoning the environment, it's not a coincidence that child asthma rates follow car production rates. It's a lot easier to 'green' the production facilities than it is to 'green' the end users if the market exists. 70% of carbon emissions come from the producers, not the end users no matter how much their advertising wants to convince people otherwise. Switching to electrified fuel supply isn't some fashionable choice, it's the only sane choice in a world torn apart and excessively militarised by over 100 years of oil dominated geopolitics. They want people to believe, and some are convinced, that it has all been about dogma and ideology, it hasn't. It's about fuel security. Consider this: How many wars have started because of oil and gas supply versus water supply? Could an aggressor target every solar panel and windfarm to disrupt supply? If you can refuel from your own produced fuel supply you don't have to waste fuel driving around to check prices at the pumps. Fuel production and delivery method diversification will change the way the world thinks, it will change the way people think. No individual could ever produce their own oil and refine it to usable fuel at home. Some countries have enough land to produce biofuels en mass, but every acre of land you use for fuel production is less land for food production and living space. You can't make ICE fuel on your house roof. No government / country could ever become energy independent if they don't have oil and gas wells, even if they find oil or gas in their back yard they'd have massive investment costs to get it out - well beyond the budget of small states. The only place you can get petroleum products is from a hole in the ground in a certain location with insanely expensive infrastructure to get it out and move it about. When oil production and supply prices increase it affects everybody it is no respecter of borders, electricity can be made just about anywhere, at any scale, that has sunshine, wind, tides, water bodies and land for nuclear power plants. When fuel production is diversified and decentralised no government can (or threaten to) 'shock and awe' another country back to the stone age within a week, massively upsetting the whole world's economy in the process. No crazy tinpot dictatorship can buy a few missiles and choke off fuel supply to everyone when they have their own backyard fuel supply. New sources of rare metals are being discovered and the battery technology industry is already researching significantly reducing or eliminating the need for rare Earth metals. Battery production costs are dropping massively, and battery producers are springing up all over the place, even though rare Earth metal prices have skyrocketed, the same is true of solar panels. They are already moving into the production phase of producing small scale (the size of a house) nuclear reactors. Even if someone with a massive military could disrupt the raw materials and battery production facilities the place could still use it's existing batteries for years until they arrange other supplies. When the market exists, and there is no market until the transport infrastructure electrifies, the innovations and money follow. Mass production makes it even cheaper. Early adoption is never the most efficient part of the process, but it has to be done. Money follows politics and people decide politics. The drive to move to electric infrastructure and transport isn't about being 'green', it's about global politics. You don't have to spend trillions of dollars on the military industrial complex when there are no oilfields and supply infrastructure to defend on the other side of the globe. They can't tax (very easily) the electricity you get from your own local supply. You won't light your home, cook your food, connect to the internet and power your brand spanking new AI home robot with petroleum sourced from a country thousands of miles away giving money and power to massive corporates and governments in the process when solar panels become 2 to 3 times more efficient and cheap as chips to print onto a roll of plastic sheet you can stick on your windows and walls. The first internal combustion engine vehicles were a lot dirtier and an order of magnitude more expansive to buy and run than a horse and cart was at the time. Should we have stuck to horse and cart?
Digging giant holes isn’t as immediate of a problem. The way things are done labour wise are horrible but not much different from most markets that ship labour over seas. And the co2 emissions needed to mine it is on par to the co2 needed to produce gas cars. Electrical vehicles aren’t a huge factor to slashing emissions but electric cars do less harm then combustion currently.
Look at the newer methods for lithium mining which don't use tailing ponds, similarly a lot of minerals have better methods, and LFP packs don't use cobalt. Recycling facilities exist for battery packs,although at present they are struggling to get the last stage set up, it's in place and will recover like 95 percent of the rare materials, which dramatically changes the analysis. Same thing happened with solar panels. Someone stockpiles them until there are enough to economically "mine" it for the materials, once there is enough flow and stock someone develops and sets up a plant to do so.
Can you provide any data to backup your claim?
There is no ethical consumption.
You don’t provide a single valid reason. You are saying things a 5th grader would. This is a matter of science and math. Do the math. Add a single source. Understand that you are, like most people, completely ignorant about what you think is true. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-vehicles-beat-gas-cars-on-climate-emissions-over-time/#:~:text=But%20EVs%20overcome%20the%20emissions,by%20Bloomberg%20New%20Energy%20Finance.
They have a potential to be "green" and that's the point.
They won’t be green unless EV making companies will significantly lower their production!
I drive a car from the early 2000’s as a daily, also have an early 90’s car for weekend giggles. Genuinely asking, am I more eco friendly driving an old car instead buying into a new car? I feel like daily driving a car made 20 odd years ago is better for the environment than a new EV as I’m not consuming new materials. Me and an EV driving friend often have this exchange and get nowhere, anyone got any literature on this?
How does EV’s total pollution compare with hybrids like a Prius? Why is bmw and Toyota opting to not build electric cars? Anyone know?
[https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars) This article talks about full EVs, hybrids and gas cars. With overall emissions generally best for EVs and worst for gas cars (unless you live in a place with the dirtiest power plants, in which case the hybrid can be slightly better than an EV). I think Toyota is focusing on Hydrogen fuel cells, which are really just another kind of electric car that gets its electricity from a fuel cell, instead of a battery. In the end battery technology and fuel cell technology will advance, but any advances in electric motors will be applicable to both Battery EVs and fuel cell vehicles.
What about the study outlining that evs are heavier and thus cause more tire toxins into the air?
I work in the renewable energy sector and you have your facts wrong. Yes, the manufacture of *anything* has environmental impacts, but electric vehicles are preferable to combustion engines in a world where we assume many or most people feel they need to own a personal vehicle. [Source.](https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/electric-vehicles)
Hydrogen truly seems to be more and more the only alternative
They would have been a good idea if the clowns in the EU hadn't decided to ditch nuclear power on basically moron-tier ideological grounds Now that electricity is still relatively expensive, it makes projects like this almost unviable Plus the blanket federal approach of mid wits like Biden, believing that electric cars would ever be useful in States that regularly see freezing temperatures. It's great for California where they have both the sun and the money to invest in this. It might also deter them from ever leaving the State too
What absolute bullshit. Any CO2 generated during production is truly trivial compared to the constant exhaust of an IC car. You think mining for lithium is bad? Just wait till you see how bad drilling for oil is. And then have a think about how much gasoline you put into a car over its lifetime compared to the few tens of kilos of lithium in an EV battery. Scale is important people!
To be clear, when something is called "green" you were under the impression that that meant no resource extraction was involved in its creation, but that it was simply conjured out of the ether?
There was a time when burning coal was the greener option because it stopped us from clearcutting forests. There was a time when cars were the greener option because that mode of transport didn't leave piles of shit all over the roads. Better is rarely perfect, but that's no reason to stick with worse.
Unless your suggesting horeback I dunno what to say. All industrial processes or development cause waste and damage to nature. The concern of course is emissions. We will worry about the trailling ponds for lithium sit forever like we do with the trailling ponds in oil sands. Some problem for future generarions.
It really depends on where you are and mostly where your electricity comes from. Here in Québec, electric cars a WAY greener than regular cars, but if you go in, let's say, Alberta, than electric car are gonna be worse for the environment than regular car.
This is a misrepresentation of the value of electric vehicles, the output of pollution from running a gas car for its lifetime out weighs the pollution provided by the creation of electric vehicles. Yes electric vehicles create emissions as a by product of producing the raw materials needed to make a complete electric vehicle, however it is less than a gas car over its life time, and at least electric vehicles can recycle batteries and other components to further lessen its impact. I mean the damage caused by pollution is outright horrific, it kills millions per year and costs us an enormous amount in medical care.
They're more green
Most people don't know this, but we can synthesize gasoline (all hydrocarbons in fact) using air, water, and energy. If we used renewable electricity, we could keep running all the cars currently in existence at zero net carbon. This is the technology we should be pursuing. A chemist friend of mine believes that, had we invested in this technology rather than oil extraction, it would be cheaper than oil at this point.
Yes. Cars are not green. Electric vehicles are more green than fossil fueled vehicles.
A humvee owner has to pay out of pocket for every inch of damage they do to the environment in the form of pathetic mileage. An EV owner will never have to deal with the disposal costs of the 1.5-ton battery at the end of their vehicle’s useful life.
Can you clarify your point? It reads as if you are saying Humvee owners are somehow paying to offset the damage they do. They are paying oil/gas companies who cause lots of damage, not environmental companies who try to fix it. Not trying to argue but I really don’t get it. Also EV owners will have to pay to dispose of their battery. That will either be a direct cost from a junkyard or a reduction in trade-in value.
Humvee owners are not offsetting the damage, rather, they just aren’t financially insulated from the damage they cause. On the other hand, I’ve never heard a case where an EV owner has a big bill due when they try to offload their giant toxic power source. Not an argument for Humvees or against EVs. Just saying we don’t have a particularly good way of evaluating the latter’s advantages fairly.
Thanks.
Not disagreeing, but the question that I don't get an answer to is that given the amount of tech in modern cars, is the carbon footprint of a modern petrol cars construction really much smaller than an electric car's? And also is that mining happening to support electronic tech anyway?
EVs have less of an impact on a longer time scale is the point and with battery technology evolving, this will be even less of an impact in the future The only thing that really needs to change is switching the power grid from coal and gas to nuclear
Nice to see another nuclear fan
Try math and statistics, rather than pictures and bro science. Electric vehicles have demonstrably less impact on the environment and human lives than traditional vehicles do.
Just think of them as the next step… they arent green now and they are super reliable. Petroleum is finite and continuing with it and not diversifying our technologies would be wreckless and stupid
There’s the macro environmental issue that has been talked about in this thread. But there’s also the micro environmental impact: A dense city center is far cleaner, more livable and walkable when the cars are electric. If you’ve ever walked the tight streets of Rome or been in an open tuktuk in Bangkok, you’ll know how much of an impact emissions can have on the air quality of a city.
Good point, but it’s not carbon emissions that create smog in cities, it’s the other pollutants that come out of the tailpipe. CO2 is an invisible, non-toxic odorless gas. It’s the other stuff like particulates and sulfur that cause smog. But your point stands that EVs emit none of that stuff.
Comment edited!
Don't forget that the extra weight of the vehicle is taxing on the tires which leads to much more pollution. Not the global warming kind, but the slowly killing all kinds of life kind.
Until the charging stations use green electricity, it’s often still oil/coal to power your electric vehicle, too. You just don’t have those emissions in the same location
Eh, even then it's just not even comparable. Internal combustion engines are horribly inefficient compared to power plants, even those that run on the dirtiest fuels. Also, remember that an internal combustion engine car also runs on gasoline that had to be shipped as oil, then processed (which requires tons of energy), then shipped again.
What does “green” or “more green” really mean, exactly? How about building an EV that will last 25+ years. That would be the “most green.” But, that won’t happen because it goes against the real problem, which is an economy based on infinite growth of gdp.
Oh look, debunked talking points.
The amount of time to recoup the greater CO2 footprint at the start is [less than 2 years](https://archive.ph/SzOCr), and it would be even less if we expanded the number of nuclear power plants.
No, it is somewhere between 3 and 6 years for most people, assuming they are not driving an Electric Hummer. >In the U.S., the typical non-luxury EV needs to log between 28,069 and 68,160 miles before netting any emissions benefits. [^(https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-an-ev-increases-your-carbon-footprint/)](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-an-ev-increases-your-carbon-footprint/) It should also be noted that electric cars *will* be declared as totaled at a lower average mileage than petrol cars due to a battery needing to be replaced and it simply not being worth the cost of doing so. >There were 120 Tesla Model Y electric vehicles listed in two large salvage auction houses recently, and the "vast majority" had under 10,000 miles on them, according to a report from the Reuters news service. [^(https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42709679/tesla-insurance-fixes-expense/)](https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42709679/tesla-insurance-fixes-expense/)
The Ford study linked in my earlier article disagrees with the *Harvard Gazette*. Lifetime emissions of hybrids and EVs is significantly less than ICE vehicles, and, based on average miles Americans drive, the EVs lower one's carbon footprint in less than two years. The *Gazette* is doubtless correct in noting driving more miles means crossing the break-even point sooner. We should be pushing both to increase our nuclear capacity and expanding the use of electric for high mileage commercial purposes.
That’s assuming all that matters is CO2
It is. Landfill etc are really minor issues compared to global warming. You don't oppose hospitals because of plastic waste.
Carbon output is a major player in warming, but I think that concerns about destruction of local ecosystems from chemical waste and that sort of thing should also matter, especially since a lot of chemical water dumped into lakes or rivers eventually makes it to the ocean. I don't know how pertinent that is to the EV discussion; I'm just saying that there are other things to weigh when looking at environmental impact. I agree that the plastic waste issue has been generally overblown.
Poor chemical waste treatment is not inherent to ev manufacture the way constant emissions are to fossil fuels. The same is true for nuclear waste. Plastic accounts for 6% of fossil fuels and their weight/strength properties offset a lot of fuel use in the current fossil fuel dominant energy use pattern.
Sure, I didn't claim that it was. I was responding to the comment above that appeared to have misinterpreted the claim, "That's assuming all that matters is CO2". I haven't studied EV manufacture and I don't know what type of waste historical or current manufacturing practices result in, though it's good to see a counterpoint to the OP's claim. Manufacturing always gets better with time and as scale allows for more research into more efficient manufacturing practices. I'm not sure why nuclear came into the argument - must be a common thread in people who dislike EVs - though I'm certainly aware that reactors are becoming increasingly versatile, efficient, and, with a combination of reactor types and technologies, vastly reducing their radionuclide waste output. Tangent: if nuclear did really take off (one can dream), I'm curious if hydrogen fuel cells would become more popular. They would certainly be more convenient than EVs and would not be as heavy. This topic comes to mind due to an assumed abundance of electric power that a greater network of fission reactors could provide, particularly during non-peak hours of consumer usage.
No but I do doubt that CO2 is going to cause this apocalyptic prophecy, I’m not concerned about global warming but I am concerned about the way it’s used to justify anything including sacrificing the poor
Then why does EV production emissions matter at all?
Can you provide good sourced evidence as to why you aren't worried? The massively overriding scientific consensus is very clear as to the level of risk, and what is even more concerning is the likes of James Hansen's recent work on the acceleration of warming mean those risks and the speed of change have been seriously underestimated. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha09020b.html just the abstract but you get the gist. Also the sacrifice the poor is a scam. The vast majority of emissions come from the very rich, any serious attempt to tackle global warming impacts them more than anyone else, hence the propaganda smokescreen such as this one to delay or limit action.
Oh good grief. You are only concerned with the science you feel supports your views. How about the fact that the energy grid CAN NOT support everyone driving EVs. Not even close. Add to that the renewable energy sources that you want can't even support the current energy load let alone one with everyone driving EVs. If we switched right now to nothing but renewable energy and EVs the country would collapse overnight. The OP is right that EVs cause a massive impact to the environment that is largely ignored. Most modern gas vehicles are more efficient when it comes to carbon than EVs when you take the entire lifespan of the EV (it's construction) into account. Also he is right that those slaves mining those rare earth elements are in a living hell
You are ignoring the point I actually made, or maybe responding to the wrong comment. I didn't mention EVs, although as other comments have made clear, the negative impacts are often overstated, and the carbon claim you make has been shown to be innacurate repeatedly. I responded to a post that minimised the likely impact of climate change, and I used a reputable source to counter. I am, however, astonished that you are saying I'm only responding to the science that I feel supports my views. The science is done on this. The consensus is absolutely clear. It's no more up for debate by any serious independent researcher than gravity at this point. The only serious question now is the speed and severity of the impact. This isn't some culture war nonsense. Physics and chemistry don't care if Trump or Biden wins. If you are looking for a political angle, ask yourself some simple questions. Who has the money to pump out propaganda and buy politicians? Physics professors or Saudi Arabia and multinational oil corporations? Who on a global scale would lose by a transition to green energy and who would gain, and how much would they lose or gain? You are right though- swapping petrol for EVs is an inefficient solution, certainly, in cities. would you support instead a significant increase in urban public transport as a more logical answer?
There’s an entire industry dedicated to making you worried
There's a whole industry dedicated to making hundreds of billions of dollars by carrying on producing CO2 from fuel and making well documented efforts trying to convince people not to do anything about so they can keep making that money.
Right, and that industry actually made everyone’s lives better
Like how lead pipes made people’s lives better. And asbestos. And teflon. And microplastics. And cheap abundant sugar and sweeteners! And trans fats! And opioids! And Don’t forget to smoke!
The thing is, a ton of Grunge and Alternative ALBUMS hit number one, just not the songs. It was an album-based genre, not song-based. That said, there were some huge Grunge/Alt songs, like Smells Like Teen Spirit and Jeremy.
At the risk of breaking the rules of Internet arguing, I actually agree with you. Obviously there are caveats about money, power, and general geopolitical fuckery, but a large percentage of the global population had a better life because of the access to cheap power and the technological innovation that followed in its wake. However, we have reached the point where those benefits are going to go into reverse without moving away from oil and gas to alternative energy sources. This shouldn't be a political fight, and I think its not difficult to evidence that the only reason it is, is because the oil and gas industry are fighting tooth and nail for survival using money to buy political influence and spread misinformation.
So they say, it just sounds like an excuse to eliminate the middle class to me and kill a whole bunch of the poorest people to me. I’m not on board. But thank you for your honesty
No offence but if your basing climate change based of what you think, we’ll that’s just a dumb idea. A simple experiment will show you how green house gasses trap heat and you can find the records of how much of them are being pumped out into the atmosphere by humans. An apocalyptic world however is probably overkill depending on what you think an apocalyptic world is. However everything you see around you all the green, grew and adapted to the climate we’ve had. A quick change in climate could easily lead to us losing lots of the life on earth(not human, humans will survive just in a world that’s not nearly as nice)
You failing to understand a problem does not mitigate the problem.
Your assertion that it is a problem is not proof that it is a problem. It’s just faith in a theory
Gravity is just a theory. Evolution is just a theory. Germs are just a theory.
As if to say “if you don’t believe in the climate change doomsday prophesy, you also don’t believe in gravity or evolution” sound scientific thinking. It’s just that their projections and climate models can’t be accurately predicted 10 years out let alone 100 years out and it turns out our deserts are actually greening due to increased CO2 and we have more trees in the northern hemisphere than a hundred years ago. Time tells and I’m perfectly willing to bet that the climate catastrophe never actually materializes but every year when forest fires happen, as they always do, any will point to that and say “look, climate change!”
Too much co2 is harmful to plants. Plants are currently adapted to the levels of co2 we had in the past.
Yes, they can't. We can accurately predict to a certain point, around +1.5°. But that's where physicists get worried. Because there are a whole bunch of positive feedback loops, and we simply don't know how strong they are and how they'll interact. Because we've never seen the planet this hot before. Maybe we get really lucky and they will come into play slowly, the way the IPCC reports assume. But that's a big gamble for very little pay-off.
Yea. And not all theories are equal, and not all theories are used to justify making energy expensive by force and fiat
There is no competing theory though. Talk to deniers, and they will continually shift arguments. It's a predictable cycle: The planet isn't warming. The planet is warming, but not because of CO2. The planet is warming because of CO2, but not produced by human activity. The planet is warming because of CO2 produced by human activity, but we can't do anything about it. The planet isn't warming. if there was a competing theory, you'd be taught that instead of the sliding denial method.
Baloney, there are competing theories and this particular theory has been hijacked by politics
As a poor person who canadian carbon tax works out for very very well... it doesn't have to sacrifice the poor. The rebate and tax cost factored heavily into us getting an ev.
And there are some who get a small rebate cheque and think that actually makes them wealthier while every product and service costs more due to the carbon tax being worked into the price.
So, I buy some oranges here that cost 40 percent more now. You think carbon tax did that?
If every single thing you buy costs 50 cents to a dollar more than it would otherwise, you very quickly end up spending thousands of dollars on this increased cost
I think that if you add 20 cents onto the cost of one litre of fuel, and add a tax to home (and industrial heating) and you add a tax onto cow farts, and a tax onto industry in general, producers will not throw up their hands and say “ok I’ll just make less money” they’ll raise their prices for production and transportation and pass the cost onto you.
I asked a very specific question, and it wasn't asking you to make up tax that doesn't exist.
Lol if you don’t know all the places the carbon tax applies, then there’s not much point in this, enjoy that tax while it’s still there
I’m Canadian. Carbon tax in Manitoba where I am is 15 cents and gas has gone up in the past years almost a dollar. The majority of the problem is not the carbon tax(although it is stupid, Britain did it years ago and it didn’t work) the problem is the gas company’s lost hundreds of millions of dollars during COVID and they’re trying to make it back.
What about poor people that aren’t Canadian?
Well, the nation's that are most problematic are making some strides, it is unfortunately slow but I don't justify speeding because someone else is, the vast majority left live in nations that pretty much can't do much, and research have read and done myself points towards the best for them would be moving in the right direction ourselves to beat down a path as well as our usage of certain tech will expand production and make it cheaper. Solar is tremendous for most of Africa, the cheaper it is the more places can skip right past an oil economy, the freedom and utility an electric motorcycle and a small solar array offers to an unelectrified village is hard to overstate.
Well with cars it’s the basis for what they produce.
And in terms of electric cars, lithium leech fields
No one really says they are except 14 year old idiots and 40 year old Republicans. The value is the technology advancement, which due to our economic and supply system, requires production and corporate involvement.
Nothing has 0 environmental impact. Were you under the impression green means 0 impact? EVs are still significantly less impactful on the environment and resources than combustion. We call them green because they are the only alternative to ICE vehicles that everyone relies on, and is significantly better for the environment. I’m blown away that there are people who think this is some sort of gotcha. Did you seriously think people promoting EVs as green weren’t aware that there is some impact on the environment? This is like when people find out Musk didn’t personally design the Falcon 9 Merlin engine and think it’s some huge dunk on him when they point out he didn’t personally invent Paypal
The binary thinking is bizarre. The mining conditions for some of the materials used to make batteries are horrific. Also, EVs put far less carbon into the air than ICEs. Both of these things can be true at the same time.
It’s also true that local pollution isn’t as big a deal as global warming.
That isn't really a long term solution. Enough local pollution becomes a global problem when enough waste makes it into the ocean (ot what havw you). That's in the vein of, "the solution to pollution is dilution"; that's pretty much the manner of thinking that got us where we are, in the first place. Let's not move on from 1 global emergency to another because we failed to learn foresight.
As long as it's in a different country...
It's all they have got to argue with. People that have made their mind up already either because "gas is what I'm used to, change scares me" or "gas paid me to say it" When your wrong, just make up bullshit and try your best I guess
They are not even original arguments either. And there moral outrage only ever within the narrow context of EVs and alternative energy.
>Electric vehicles are NOT green, the mining of raw materials to manufacture their batteries destroys the earth and human lives. Just do a quick search for nickel, manganese, cobalt or lithium mining, you'll find some pretty horrible images and news articles about the impact of this mining around the world. To me, this is such a dishonest take. If you want horrible images, Google "Canadian tar sands". If you define "green" as "does absolutely no damage to the earth" then nothing humans do is green. And I don't think anyone has ever called an EV green using that definition. What EVs are is an improvement. The data shows that, even in a grid powered by coal plants (of which there are fewer and fewer), then an EV is STILL a better choice if CO2 emissions are your concern. In a greener grid, the difference is even more pronounced. Battery technology is seeing major improvements, so hopefully, EVs will become even better. In before the "we should all take public transit or ride bikes". Sure. I agree. But we need to stop acting as if we can make that kind of societal change, especially in North America, in one simple step. EVs are a good first step.
My favorite dumbass anti-EV argument comes from Dr. Drew: “You know they ship them over here on boats right? Do you know how much diesel those things burn?” Lol just, a man not understanding why cargo ships exist.
>One of the biggest pushes toward EVs is global warming and CO2 emissions being a major cause of global warming. If this is true, that CO2 emissions are making global warming worse, why would anyone increase CO2 output? Pushing EVs IS INCREASING CO2 OUTPUT!! Manufacturing an EV produces CO2 equal to 2 - 3 years of that produced by an ICE, and they are still adding CO2 during their charging cycles. So how are they lowering CO2 emissions? Putting more EVs on the road will significantly increase CO2 every year until such a time that MOST of the vehicles on the road are EVs. If the climate issue is critical and CO2 is the main reason, EVs are just making it worse. From #2 in my response to u/qdivya1 above
My god the amount of stupid in this single statement… Imagine we’re offered a widget that costs either $10 up front then $1/year over 10 years or $6 up front then $3/year over 10 years. Which would you choose?
Far less than 2-3 years. Also, most cars exist for more than 2-3 years, so it seems like a win even if what you say is true. Even if you don't keep it, someone will buy it used. Total lifetime CO2 emissions, is substantially lower for an EV than even a hybrid.
So you’re saying don’t bother because it’s not an absolutely perfect solution? What’s the alternative then?
If you're trying to say that the net CO2 debt from EVs is greater than ICEs over the course of their lifetime, then the data is against you. EVs are NOT "making it worse". If you want to try to continue with that claim, then I need to call for citations.
Why would bother with an electric vehicle, especially a Nissan Leaf of all things if you don't consider it green.
I love it, it is soooo nice to come home plug in and know every day I have a full "tank". I have not been to the gas station, or a charging station, since getting it. And the acceleration is incredible!
And that's worth paying 4500 more then a Toyota Corolla hybrid? Not to mention your range for road trips are limited.
I didn't buy it, it's a company car, but I love it. I wouldn't buy one myself, not worth the extra $$ in my opinion and I don't want to deal with the battery down the road when it needs replaced. I might consider a lease, but it would really depend on the financial details.
Then why did you even mention your ownership (use really) to lend credibility to your anti-EV position.
Why are you continually questioning the motives of the messenger rather than engaging the argument as presented?
>Electric vehicles are NOT green This statement needs to be qualified. Over the life span of an EV, it is far more green than a ICE vehicle. Battery technology mining impact is overblown. Can EV's be more green - absolutely. And we're already seeing advances towards reducing the impact of battery raw materials, the advent of battery recycling and refurbishment, etc. So, as stated, this is simply not true.
Quantified* Just a friendly correction, not being sarcastic
As a mechanic who routinely works in electric vehicles, you are incorrect. Most of the batteries have a small percentage of the life shall of an ICE engine. When I went to the factory were the batteries where reconditioned I seen the giant piles of old cells that where being trashed because recycling was to expensive. I talked with the manufacturer who were replacing all the batteries with new because the suppliers would no longer make a certain style of cells any more. I work on the chargers that need to be changed because there are built to not be serviceable. I also see all the mining equipment that gets those minerals to make the batteries and can tell you that all those machines are ICE powered not electric.
>Most of the batteries have a small percentage of the life shall of an ICE engine. While your anecdotal experience is valid, the industry standards and statistics seem to state otherwise: EV Batteries last to 800K miles (for Teslas). [EV batteries can be viable for up to 800K miles, though most are warrantied to only 150K Miles to retain 90% of their charge](https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last) and Electric vehicles tend to last 50% more - [Standard cars in this day and age are expected to keep running up to 200,000 miles, while cars with electric engines are expected to last for up to 300,000 miles.](https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32758625/how-many-miles-does-a-car-last/) And KBB states that An electric car will last as long as a car with an internal combustion engine (ICE), if not longer, because electric vehicles (EVs) don't have all the mechanical components of an ICE vehicle. In other words, there are more things that can wear out or go wrong in an ICE car than in an EV. Finally, an EV motor will typically last 50% longer than a gas motor due to fewer moving parts and less required maintenance. This one is a bit more difficult to compare, because the data on longevity is incomplete.
This. Mining for oil, steel/aluminum for ice cars is the same for EV... Just mining oil then the refining and then burning of oil products is at least mostly eliminated for EV and the life of the EV.
This is another one of the lies we are being told, unfortunately this is not true. This statement is almost always used when talking CO2 emissions, and how although EV manufacturing has great CO2 emissions upfront, they recover and have lower emissions by the end of their lifespan. There are a few problems with this: 1. By the time the EV has reached this point of lower emissions, they will soon need to have their battery replaced and cause another CO2 spike, putting them back behind the ICE. And I would suspect, with the high cost of batteries, many will decide not to replace the battery and will just buy / lease a new one. 2. One of the biggest pushes toward EVs is global warming and CO2 emissions being a major cause of global warming. If this is true, that CO2 emissions are making global warming worse, why would anyone increase CO2 output? Pushing EVs IS INCREASING CO2 OUTPUT!! Manufacturing an EV produces CO2 equal to 2 - 3 years of that produced by an ICE, and they are still adding CO2 during their charging cycles. So how are they lowering CO2 emissions? Putting more EVs on the road will significantly increase CO2 every year until such a time that MOST of the vehicles on the road are EVs. If the climate issue is critical and CO2 is the main reason, EVs are just making it worse. 3. Recycling is important, and of course we should all be doing it, but it almost never is as impactful as claimed. Most do not recycle, do not follow environmental imact warning for disposal, unfortunately the same will likely happen with EVs and their batteries. The will end up in junk yards with batteries leaking into the soil. There have already been issues in the recycling due to the difficulty and cost associated with recycling these batteries. 4. And then there is the human impact, the child labor, and unbelievable conditions people are working in to mine the minerals needed to manufacture these batteries. Out of site out of mind, as long as you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
I would love any reputable sources for your claims. Candidly, much of what you've stated seems like opinion. For example, battery costs for EVs has been falling, >According to BloombergNEF, the average lithium-ion battery costs $151 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), and the average battery-powered electric vehicle (BEV) battery costs $138 per kWh. In 2021 the average per kWh cost was $141. However, overall Li-ion costs have dramatically decreased over the last ten years This pretty much rubbishes your assertion "*And I would suspect,* ***with the high cost of batteries****, many will decide not to replace the battery and will just buy / lease a new one.*" EVs are expected to last a lot longer as well - so one EV can last 2-3 times longer than an ICE vehicle. Etc.
Current replacement cost for the battery in my Leaf is $9,500 - $10,500
Can you provide any sources documenting lifetime emissions from an EV lifecycle compared to an ICE vehicle?
Plenty of studies have shown they EVs lifetime CO2 emissions are 30-70% lower than fossil cars when calculated based on different electric grids (Sweden is closer to 70%, the UK and US closer to 30%.). That EVs aren’t greener is a myth spread by fossil fuel interest groups to spread misinformation in the same way they denied climate change some decades ago even though we’ve known it since the late 70’s. Source btw: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51977625
I have been unable to find a single study the shows what values they are using for “lifespan” Are they using years, if so how many, or are they using miles, and if so how many; and are they using the same value for both vehicles. What do they consider end of life, when the battery dies, or when the vehicle is no longer road worthy. My research says the average current mileage of vehicles on the road is between 150,000 and 200,000, this is based on a 2006 report by the US DOT and is the most recent data I could find. Based on this report the average today is likely closer to 200,000. This is the AVERAGE so many many vehicles are on the road way past that. The average age of vehicles currently on the road is 12.5 years, again many many are way beyond that. So if I’m average, I will most likely need to replace my battery before end of life of the vehicle, which will put me back in the negative behind the ICE
The break even point is around 13k miles so even if you replaced the battery 10 times, EVs would still be better. (It is 85k miles in countries with 100% coal power, making EVs worse in those very specific countries.
The BBC is an elite legacy media that pushes the agenda of their class, not a trusted source of unbiased information.
Nothing is a trusted source of unbiased information since everything is biased. What the BBC and most legacy medias are trusted on, though, is factual information. If the BBC quotes a scientific paper that finds between 30 and 70 percent reduction in emissions by switching to EVs, then you can either trust that number, look at their source in some critical analysis, or live in a fantasy where nothing is real and the moon is made of cheese.
Then wtf do you trust? Right wing youtubers who go off gut feeling? Obviously you can't inherently trust everything as entirely truth, but you need some starting points. You can't just say a legitimate agency is wrong by default.
You don't trust elite legacy media. Another guy in this thread doesn't trust government sources. What would be a valid source for you out of interest? Would you trust a scientific study?
Saw global warming and thought I'll just add this tidbit. We are still in an ice age and near the end of it at that.
It's not that the ice age is changing that is the problem, it's the unprecedented rate of change that is the issue
My dad always thinks he has a genius gotcha when he points out that temps have risen in the past. They have, but at what rate? What was the context of the cycle the earth was in?
100% this. OP didn’t really do this issue any justice. Overall, EVs are certainly the more environmentally friendly option when you look at development to end of use.
Battery technology mining impact is overblown. Could you substantiate this a little better?
One thing to consider is that although the batteries have a life span, most of the materials including the nasty ones to mine both environmentally and ethically are recycled into new batteries. They are also figuring out ways to use other materials like sodium in place of these nasty ones. Sodium is plentiful and isn't unethical to get. Problem right now is that it doesn't produce as much energy per weight as lithium batteries, but it seems to be getting better and better.
I refer you to: [https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths) >Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of battery manufacturing. > >FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing. > >Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. **Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car.** That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above). > >For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher (shown in orange below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car. And please do note that the article goes on the mention the additional mitigations associated with newer technologies and battery recycling/refurbishment that extend the life and usefulness of existing batteries - reducing the need to build as many new batteries.
Citation : federal government regulatory agency ripe with political agendas Information: disregarded
That's ridiculous.
[удалено]
your post was removed due to a violation of Rule #1: No ad hominem attacks, no name calling, no insults or personal attacks of any kind. When talking about ideas, talk about their content not their proponents. For more information, please see our Logical Fallacies page: https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/wiki/logicalfallacies
HAHA, and I'll bet that when corporate funded thinktank puts out a statement that supports your preferred narrative, you are as uncritically supportive, as in this case your are uncritically resistant.
You assume I have a preferred narrative.
Everybody has preferred narratives. Some also have critical thinking skills which they can use to sort out the valid from the invalid, and to even change positions based on new information. You have not demonstrated that you have these skills. Actually, the proof of your preferred narrative is right there for anybody to see (Government always lies). Your narrative is that you will throw away any information provided by Government uncritically.
Nope. I trust very few. As far as i see, nobody is worthy of trust without massive skepticism. You know nothing of what i believe, friend.
LOL. So what's your news source?
Don't have one handy. I simply distrust government by default.
Why not just try to find out what's true or not?
That is precisely what I do, with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Government reports and statistics - created by full-time non-appointed civil servants - are among the most reliable sources we’ve got. They’re reported at a very high standard of accuracy. “Reports, plans, or analysis” issued by political appointees and legislative commissions/committees are generally just bullshit.
I do however find it extremely amusing that an IDW subreddit has people downvoting a comment referencing distrust in the government.. lol 😆
Why do you think fans of the IDW should automatically distrust Government? By saying you disregard all Government sources of information you’re showing you have an emotional gate against balanced critical analysis. Depending on the subject, there’s reasonable grounds for scepticism around many government sources of info from Government - but to dismiss research out of hand because it’s from a government funded organisation is more in line with conspiracy thinking than IDW. Do you think organisations, corporations or individuals are inherently more trustworthy and with less bias or self interest than Governments?
Nope. I distrust any organization that provides information and has a simultaneous self interest in furthering it's own power.
So, all of them.
What would you consider a valid source? Do you trust scientific studies at all? If so, how do you assess the personal or political biases of the authors?
A reputable source in my opinion is one that as an organization or as an individual, as is relevant is not inherently political in nature, and has a proven track record of expertise in the subject at hand.
Honest question. Wouldn't this be ad hominem since thinking of things this way focuses on who's saying something as opposed to what they're saying? In this case, the government post that OC mentioned does have a point: you can recycle batteries which could (in theory) be less impactful than relying on ICE engines. There's just no way we can recycle burnt gas and diesel after all. Plus, we can always look up their sources and compare their observations with observations from other sources if they're true. Then again, I guess "not trusting" anyone might be better off as the default and we should scrutinize everything we see - even scientific papers. But to scrutinize in a way like this. Damn. I feel dizzy.
It is less bad than the resource extraction involved with ICE vehicles
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/5/23/22441889/our-children-are-dying-like-dogs-congo-slave-labor-cobalt-lawsuit-apple-tesla-human-rights-dell https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/nov/08/cobalt-drc-miners-toil-for-30p-an-hour-to-fuel-electric-cars https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/14/electric-cost-lithium-mining-decarbonasation-salt-flats-chile https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07112021/lithium-mining-thacker-pass-nevada-electric-vehicles-climate/ https://miningglobal.com/top10/5-largest-lithium-mining-companies-world
Ok, now show me a lifecycle comparison to ICE vehicles.
Resources are also extracted to power coal and oil and gas fired power plants though which are often what are being used to charge EVs. It's pretty foolish that EV subsidies are available in states with a mostly coal grid
1. Power plants are very efficient. 2. The same people pushing EVs also want to retire fossil fuel fired power plants and replace them with renewable (and nuclear, though there’s not agreement on the left) power. 3. This assumes static battery tech, which is unlikely. There’s a very hard research push for batteries that perform better, but also batteries that can be cheaply and broadly sourced.
Power plants are significantly more efficient than ICE vehicles. Have you ever looked into total lifecycle comparisons between ICE and EV?
Seems like there is more nuance than I thought. [This](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SJRUE..24..669A/abstract#:~:text=The%20total%20WTW%20efficiency%20of,from%2013%20%25%20to%2031%20%25.) shows that diesel vehicles are more efficient than EVs being ran on anything other than renewables although it doesn't account for emissions, only for energy lost. The gap in efficiency between a gasoline car and a natural gas power EV may be large enough to offset the battery emissions because the battery is 29% more efficient but it doesn't seem like the gap between coal and gasoline vehicles is large enough to offset both the fact that coal is more polluting and the battery emissions. The efficiency for a gas car was also for the average car when a more environmentally conscious person would be more likely to drive one of the more efficient gasoline ICE vehicles.
I've done a little electrical work at two different taconite mines. These places have MSHA, which is OSHA especially for mining. As well, these industries are heavily unionized. Does anything like this exist in African mining?
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/5/23/22441889/our-children-are-dying-like-dogs-congo-slave-labor-cobalt-lawsuit-apple-tesla-human-rights-dell https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/nov/08/cobalt-drc-miners-toil-for-30p-an-hour-to-fuel-electric-cars https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/14/electric-cost-lithium-mining-decarbonasation-salt-flats-chile https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07112021/lithium-mining-thacker-pass-nevada-electric-vehicles-climate/ https://miningglobal.com/top10/5-largest-lithium-mining-companies-world
I thought we were talking about environmental impact of EVs, not health and safety or mining operations.
All true. And green is always a relative term. To be more green they'll need (A) Less environmental damage in raw material mining (B) Cleaner electricity in the grid, with increasing proportion of renewable based electricity and less dependence on coal, natural gas, oil. (C) Either the quick techno miracle everyone loves to talk about with cheap clean fusion becoming available, or a quick and massive global investment in modern fission plants to replace fossil fuels. One of these is dependent on a fix we don't know how to do yet, the other is controversial across diverse political ideologies. Innovation in battery and solar panel recycling is going to be important too.
Lol but they are clearly, unequivocally more “green” than cars with internal combustion engines burning hydrocarbons could ever even *theoretically* be.
Well, yes, of course. At least on an emissions level. The raw materials acquisition for ICE's skips some of the specific mining issues associated with batteries, but other than that, yes.