this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
2017 points (96.1% liked)
Memes
45688 readers
609 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm entertained by the fact that everyone gets hung up on how EVs are still not totally green because the electricity comes from coal fired plants or that there's still manufacturing emissions and stuff....
It's like, yeah, but compared to an ICE car, which has all the same problems (environmental cost of manufacturing the vehicle, mining and refining the fuel, transporting it, etc) but EVs don't actively pollute nearly as much during use, and they speak as if these are of equal environmental cost, and they're not. Additionally, ICE vehicles need a lot more oil to operate that needs to be changed and disposed of every few thousand miles.
It's like doing less harm isn't valuable to the people arguing against it, but then again, those are probably the same people who drive their V8 truck to get groceries.
Plus there are plenty of people, like myself, who live in areas where the electricity comes from mostly renewable sources.
Me too. I'm pretty well surrounded by nuclear and hydro-electric here in southern Ontario.
A yes, renewable nuclear energy.
Somewhat renewable through breeder reactors.
Still, nuclear energy has a very good carbon footprint (unlike coal plants) and the public image of them being polluters was a joint disinformation project by Greenpeace and the oil companies in the early 2000s. Greenpeace backpedaled hard on their stance in the recent years.
None of that is the real problem with electric cars.
The real problem with electric cars is that they're still cars, which means they embody the same arrogance of space as regular cars. In other words, they take up too much space -- both while driving and while parked -- physically forcing trip origins and destinations further apart and ruining the city not only for pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders, but even also for the drivers themselves.
(That last link is from the perspective of a car enthusiast, by the way.)
I'm not going to argue with you on that point, I think cars are too big in the first place. With electric vehicles they can be reconfigured to ebikes or something much, much smaller. but I'm only mentioning the ICE vs EVs cost of manufacturing and how "green" they are. It's a step in the right direction; it's not the whole journey. Walkable cities and more compact designs of metro areas is still something that needs to be done, but it's an entirely separate argument to the one I was making.
As someone who primarily drives because I live in a small suburb in the middle of a farm region, I'd be happy to park at the edge of a larger city and walk/bike/e-scooter/transit my way into the city. I think transit costs and the costs associated with most of the bike/e-bike/scooter services to be a bit high, given that I just drove to the city in the first place, but that's a minor gripe among the plethora of other issues it could and would likely solve to have the city more pedestrian friendly.
Personally, given where I live, I'm more or less obligated to have a car, and if that car is a PHEV or full EV, would benefit the world overall; maybe not by a lot, but certainly more than using ICE vehicles to get around.
I just visited the US and I was dumbfounded how insane your city planning is. Like you literally can't just make a short shopping trip on foot. You'd have to walk half an hour to even reach basic stores because the sprawl is so bad (City in CA with about 100k inhabitants) and then there are parking spaces everywhere. Like atleast half to 2/3 of the land space is used for parking. And ofc most parking is planned so they can accomodate everyone which means they're always atleast half empty.
I live in Canada, we're not any better. And for someone who lives here, it doesn't make sense to me either.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
arrogance of space
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Also, charging from the electrical grid means EV's immediately get future improvements in CO2 usage when the grid improves its mix of power sources.
Larger engines (such as those in power plants) are also generally more efficient. And RVs don't use oil to drive the oil to where the car can get oil - we have the grid (a modern wonder of the world) to do that for us.
The magical Nirvana solution that will turn our society into Star Trek still isn't here, so we need to obstruct less harmful solutions while failing to offer anything usable.
They will continue to astroturf any and all arguments no matter how stupid to see what sticks. We must continue to refute these idiotic claims and progress towards cleaner air
Environmental impact is still less than ICE, yes, but until we figure out a better way to process lithium and make batteries last longer hybrids still have a smaller environmental impact over the lifetime of the vehicle. Eventually we need to cut out petrol entirety of course, but until we get clean batteries the better short-term solution is hybrids when a vehicle is strictly necessary, and bikes or waking in all other cases. An electric motorcycle might be a good short-term solution too, but as of now battery manufacturing is unacceptably dirty. But as you said, it's still better than ICE. I just think hybrid would be better as a transition while the technology is improved.
Actually hybrid cars aren't more green than electric cars. As much as electric cars aren't perfect, they are by far the greenest option. Don't trust oil lobbies :)
I agree that battery tech needs to be better. We also need to put in the work now to improve the grid so that when there's wide scale adoption, the grid won't collapse under the strain.
For the most part it's a transit issue.... we simply cannot move that many watts of power.
For the rest of it, and hybrids versus full electric vs bikes vs walking, that's a much larger discussion, since not everyone will be able to adopt something more green than a highly efficient vehicle (whether hybrid or EV or otherwise)...
My main point is that they'll argue dumb crap like manufacturing, that causes so much pollution, and say it in a way that almost seems like they think that ICE cars are better for that, somehow?
It's like, we know it's not "carbon neutral" or whatever.... it's just carbon massively reduced and that's the point Carl.
Hybrids are often times even worse dan pure gas cars. Don't believe the oil lobby.
From a practical standpoint, hybrid cars make no sense. You inherit the problems of both electric and fossil and you gain pretty much nothing. I don't understand why they are still being made.
I understand the electric bit is cheaper and more efficient in city traffic while the fossil bit is more supported over long distance travel.
It seems intended for the teething stage where the charging point infrastructure isn't rolled out extensively enough for pure EV usage, and public transport doesn't do the thing.
I see a risk in complacency where the final steps aren't taken of rolling out charging points and buffing transit because hybrids are "good enough". Probably not a massive risk though as fossil's stigma grows and fuel prices rise.
It also moves most of the population that is produced away from where people live and so out of their lungs.