Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AppliedTechStuff t1_je51epy wrote

Zero emissions if and only if you draw a box around the vehicle and say, okay, from this point forward, zero emissions, from this vehicle.

Ignoring the fossil fuels needed:

  • To generate its electricity
  • To drive the massive mining vehicles needed for batteries and steel
  • To fuel the ships bringing minerals and batteries from China
  • For all the plastic components
  • For all the steel components

If you do some digging you'll learn that until a EV reaches 125,000 miles or so, its carbon footprint is no different than a Dodge Ram 2500.

But here's the rub. Most EVs will need a new battery before then, resulting in even more of a carbon footprint.

EVs are silly. They're pure hype.

Hybrids are what the world needs. They actually have a lower footprint than that Dodge Ram.

But go on pushing this error.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk&t=59s

−1

disembodied_voice t1_je5lrt8 wrote

> If you do some digging you'll learn that until a EV reaches 125,000 miles or so, its carbon footprint is no different than a Dodge Ram 2500

Actual lifecycle analyses put the breakeven point closer to 21,300 miles.

>But here's the rub. Most EVs will need a new battery before then, resulting in even more of a carbon footprint

As per the above lifecycle analysis, even if you were to double the battery production to account for a full battery replacement, electric cars would still have a far lower lifecycle carbon footprint than gas cars would.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk&t=59s

The video description for that TEDx (read: not TED) talk establishes that it has been flagged by TED themselves for violating their content guidelines against bad science.

5

AppliedTechStuff t1_jefp2ha wrote

Interesting... 21,000 vs. 125,000. Thanks. (Another source to consider.)

1

chatte__lunatique t1_je6gy76 wrote

Hybrids aren't what the world needs, either. We need to design cities so that most people don't need a car at all. And that means trains, buses, metros, trams, bikes or ebikes (which make far more efficient usage of lithium than EVs do), high- and mid-density development rather than single-family homes, and walkable neighborhoods. Car-centric development is completely unsustainable regardless of what's powering the car.

3

AppliedTechStuff t1_jefoef1 wrote

If you like cities, live there.

Me, and many like me, view cities as nice to visit maybe twice in a decade, but we have no desire to live like that.

1