Actually fueling a car is only something like 60 - 80% of the total carbon cost. Rest is manufacturing and disposal. Evs hold considerable costs (carbon, waste, human suffering) in terms of manufacturing and disposal, and only really pay off if their power is created in sustainable ways - otherwise you’re just pushing the problems out of sight.
Now I’m going to go off on some non sourced reporting here because it was given to me in a car-radio news, but the pollution caused by the construction is about equal if not a little more, but different; in terms of EV’s than ICE. However the expected lifetime use of a EV is expected to make up for that and more to a end result of less than half at a minimum before needing disposal. By your own argument you are aware the vast amount of emissions are from the ICE use itself.
Speculation: with new battery technology increasing over time, that lifetime gap may even increase.
This is all of course if you’re arguing in good faith and are willing to also recognize the difference between generalized ‘pollutants’ and environmental impacts and carbon impacts.
That’s a very weird comment - first part is really hard to read and you’ve accused me of not arguing in good faith without anything to suggest as much. If im reading this correctly
Evs are comparable in manufacturing carbon. I don’t have the numbers but believe Evs are much higher due to rare earth mining, and that is before considering the environmental damage due to mining, social costs involved and considering the lack of standards where they are mined. Make no mistake, fossil fuel mining isn’t much better in this regard but it is a well known beast.
You then have the whole argument on how that power is actually generated. Mass power generation is much more efficient than small ICE, but it does still add up if its not using renewable sources.
Regarding battery efficiency- yes I agree they will get better the same way ICE did.
The other point is that the EV swap delays other advances - walkable cities, car centric infrastructure, mass transportation. If we cut carbon by 50% but it delays 0% by decades did we actually achieve anything?
Fair point on the readability of the first paragraph, I’ve edited a little bit to clarify it’s about pollution. And I’m agreeing with you on the first paragraph, construction of EV does induce more or equal pollution, but it’s different sources of pollution, EV have the availability to have the most important part (batteries) easily recyclable. Once enough batteries hit the market to meet demand, recycled batteries could replace the majority of the market, replacing mining. Or new batteries; sodium? Who knows, the future could hold some wild advances!?
The big part of a power grid source is that it can be modular, in a area still running on coal can shut down dirty power plants and connect clean ones, a ICE will stay a ICE until you get a new car, which the current argument is that the production of cars is dirty and should be reduced as much as it could - I agree on that
I can’t quite understand the final paragraph… I don’t understand the 50% and 0%, and while walkable cities are good to strive for, it’s comparing apples to oranges.
While it could have been phrased differently, I very well did believe you could be arguing in good faith, there has been such a mix of people who have genuine concerns, and others that want to believe it’s a fad for one reason or other. But I would like to say I genuinely do hope you’re in the first group.
China’s energy grid is about 80% fossil fuels. Assuming their energy mixture remains unchanged (a bad assumption as their coal usage is on the decline) it would take about 65,000 miles for an EV’s carbon output to break even with an equivalent ICE vehicle.
The waste and suffering involved in carbon intensive fuels is ongoing instead of being single event. One benefit of renewable tech is the recyclability of it’s components. Once we’re made the battery it can be recycled and died not require ongoing extractive mining forever.
EVs have a place in a just future and can do some good at this time. Alternatives to cars are still a far more important and uncomplicated solution to our climate problems
To start with I fully agree with your last paragraph- no arguement here.
You’re right on recyclability, the problem is that they aren’t because the infrastructure isn’t in place or profitable. There is also the fact the earth doesn’t actually contain enough of the rare earth minerals to give everyone an EV (This is off memory, cant place the source).
Yes, if you are only considering the individual’s carbon cost and power is generated via 100% renewable means.
Something like 80% of China power is fossil fuels. Admittedly large scale power generation is more fuel efficient, and I don’t have the full numbers of carbon cost of manufacturing, but its important to keep in mind that carbon costs didn’t just disappear overnight.
Another consideration is that Evs still drove car centric culture. If each EV saved 50% of a vehicles lifetime carbon, but it doubled the time for mass transport to be more widely adopted, lengthened the time for cities to prioritize other means of transport and city design, and means we as a society made 50% more vehicles did we actually save anything?
I wouldn’t take it too strongly yet.
Actually fueling a car is only something like 60 - 80% of the total carbon cost. Rest is manufacturing and disposal. Evs hold considerable costs (carbon, waste, human suffering) in terms of manufacturing and disposal, and only really pay off if their power is created in sustainable ways - otherwise you’re just pushing the problems out of sight.
Now I’m going to go off on some non sourced reporting here because it was given to me in a car-radio news, but the pollution caused by the construction is about equal if not a little more, but different; in terms of EV’s than ICE. However the expected lifetime use of a EV is expected to make up for that and more to a end result of less than half at a minimum before needing disposal. By your own argument you are aware the vast amount of emissions are from the ICE use itself.
Speculation: with new battery technology increasing over time, that lifetime gap may even increase.
This is all of course if you’re arguing in good faith and are willing to also recognize the difference between generalized ‘pollutants’ and environmental impacts and carbon impacts.
That’s a very weird comment - first part is really hard to read and you’ve accused me of not arguing in good faith without anything to suggest as much. If im reading this correctly
You then have the whole argument on how that power is actually generated. Mass power generation is much more efficient than small ICE, but it does still add up if its not using renewable sources.
Regarding battery efficiency- yes I agree they will get better the same way ICE did.
The other point is that the EV swap delays other advances - walkable cities, car centric infrastructure, mass transportation. If we cut carbon by 50% but it delays 0% by decades did we actually achieve anything?
Fair point on the readability of the first paragraph, I’ve edited a little bit to clarify it’s about pollution. And I’m agreeing with you on the first paragraph, construction of EV does induce more or equal pollution, but it’s different sources of pollution, EV have the availability to have the most important part (batteries) easily recyclable. Once enough batteries hit the market to meet demand, recycled batteries could replace the majority of the market, replacing mining. Or new batteries; sodium? Who knows, the future could hold some wild advances!?
The big part of a power grid source is that it can be modular, in a area still running on coal can shut down dirty power plants and connect clean ones, a ICE will stay a ICE until you get a new car, which the current argument is that the production of cars is dirty and should be reduced as much as it could - I agree on that
I can’t quite understand the final paragraph… I don’t understand the 50% and 0%, and while walkable cities are good to strive for, it’s comparing apples to oranges.
While it could have been phrased differently, I very well did believe you could be arguing in good faith, there has been such a mix of people who have genuine concerns, and others that want to believe it’s a fad for one reason or other. But I would like to say I genuinely do hope you’re in the first group.
China’s energy grid is about 80% fossil fuels. Assuming their energy mixture remains unchanged (a bad assumption as their coal usage is on the decline) it would take about 65,000 miles for an EV’s carbon output to break even with an equivalent ICE vehicle.
The waste and suffering involved in carbon intensive fuels is ongoing instead of being single event. One benefit of renewable tech is the recyclability of it’s components. Once we’re made the battery it can be recycled and died not require ongoing extractive mining forever.
EVs have a place in a just future and can do some good at this time. Alternatives to cars are still a far more important and uncomplicated solution to our climate problems
To start with I fully agree with your last paragraph- no arguement here.
You’re right on recyclability, the problem is that they aren’t because the infrastructure isn’t in place or profitable. There is also the fact the earth doesn’t actually contain enough of the rare earth minerals to give everyone an EV (This is off memory, cant place the source).
So what I’m hearing is EVs have a 60-80% lower carbon cost?
Yes, if you are only considering the individual’s carbon cost and power is generated via 100% renewable means.
Something like 80% of China power is fossil fuels. Admittedly large scale power generation is more fuel efficient, and I don’t have the full numbers of carbon cost of manufacturing, but its important to keep in mind that carbon costs didn’t just disappear overnight.
Another consideration is that Evs still drove car centric culture. If each EV saved 50% of a vehicles lifetime carbon, but it doubled the time for mass transport to be more widely adopted, lengthened the time for cities to prioritize other means of transport and city design, and means we as a society made 50% more vehicles did we actually save anything?