Not sure how the environment would be affected by electric car use. Because all driverless cars are electric so far. They strangely talk around this in the article, without mentioning this fundamental issue.
I think the whole article is clickbait.
I think the whole article is clickbait.
Similarly, electric cars in areas were power generation primarily comes from fossil fuels are worse for the environment currently. At some point in the future they might all be green energy, but most places around the world that is not the case yet.
There is a lot of nuance to these problems. Electric cars will be very important in the future for emissions saving, but currently are in the negative.
No. This is a common myth pushed by the legacy auto and oil industries. The emissions savings cross over after around two years. Read the Tesla impact report.
Burning fuel to create electricity is not 100%
Transfering that energy over power lines has loss
Converting that energy from high voltage to house hold voltage has loss.
Charging a battery has loss
Discharging a battery has loss
Converting electric energy into a motor has loss.
Running a combustion engine in a car has less loss than the above. If that energy comes from wind, solar, or even nuclear; then even with that loss you are releasing less CO2. However if you are burning oil in both places, then the compounding energy losses matter a lot.
> Read the Tesla impact report.
Reading an electric car companies statement and taking that as absolute truth is the same as reading about "clean oil".
The other big factor to consider is the much greater complexity: internal combustion engines are complicated. All of those parts have a cost to build, assemble, and maintain — one of the biggest reasons why EVs end up cheaper to own is simply that you're not taking on all of that.
You have missed my point entirely. If your local electric generation is the same source as your car. You have not saved anything.
To reiterate again, if your local electric generation is green then things are going to be better for the environment. But if your local power plant is coal then an electric car is worse. Your car is indirectly burning coal to move. And the delivery and storage of that coal generated electric has lots of losses on the journey.
The other big factor to think about is the relative emissions profile of the shipping system which brings that fuel to you specifically where you live. It's true electric power has transmissions loses but those very considerably as a function of distance and it doesn't require the same power to be shipped multiple times. Shipping oil in a tanker with high-pollution marine Diesel engines is going to be different than piping it to a refinery or having a modern freight train haul either coal or oil, refineries aren't exactly low-pollution, and gas also requires a considerable amount of pollution shipping it to thousands of fuel stations (with electric power, at least a lot of the environmental impact is focused in one location).
But you’re willing to take oil industry propaganda as absolute truth and that’s ok, right?
This is false. Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than centralized coal or natural gas plants and are far worse in terms of both CO2 and particulate emissions overall.
You can read a news article reporting on an MIT study here: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/26/lifetime-emissions-of-evs-ar...
Roads require materials & energy to maintain. They also take up a LOT of space and slice up the natural world in a way that wrecks ecosystems.
Personal autos as the default method of transportation requires sprawly, inefficient land use. When every destination is build to accomodate the car, every errand comes to require the car. This is a bad thing, even if your car isn't directly burning gasoline.
Building roads everywhere in and of itself is a pretty dramatic change to our natural habitat.
Whether that's a positive or not is I think an undecidable problem.
That's why I dismiss the article as pseudo-scientific nonsense. They've barely scratched the surface of the issue.
Electric cars still produce greenhouse gases since our grid is not 100% renewable yet. Brake dust and asphalt also contribute to local air pollution.
I have already noticed in my own household that an electric car has reduced bicycle usage because it's perceived as less polluting than an ICE car, so for certain borderline trips where we might have previously opted for bicycles we opt for the e car.
It's complicated. There's always more nuance than we want to admit. All those insisting its somehow simple because they've figured out one factor (see other comments in this thread) are always being naieve.
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/long-reads/cycling-enviro....
And if those were real issues, they are also much mitigated by electric vehicles. Again, its a non-issue looking for relevance in my opinion.
Electric cars often use regenerative braking. For every old-style car replaced by an electric car, that is reduced. Not increased.
Your opinion isn't in agreement with the research.
And before you come tell us that electric cars are quieter (they are, for the occupants), the great majority of automobile noise is from friction between the tires and the road.
And they take up the same amount of space as comparable ICE vehicles (those that are able to go point to point), if not less.
But you singled out electric cars as disproportionately taking up more space than other point to point transportation solutions, for some reason.
Oh and time and money… on the money point, if you look at the total cost of ownership, a $25,000 Camry costs more than a $35,000 Tesla, so I'd say that money point is open for debate.
As for time, also open for debate. I presume you're referring to the time it takes to charge, which is getting faster all the time and usually takes place whole the owner is sleeping.
If the vast majority of auto trips are in self driving cars, the charging time will not figure in as a factor in the experience of using a car.
It hardly factors in now even. On long road trips, just stop for a quick bathroom break. I spoke to a Model Y owner who says he drives from the Bay Area to LA with one stop for charging, 9 minutes. Hardly a big deal. My own experience is similar, although my last trip there was before we had faster V3 charging stations available.
I'd suggest learning more about EVs before hardening your opinions.
For getting cars around a city electric makes sense. For longer highway trips it is questionable for cars (I know people do it, but they spend a lot more time recharging).
OTOH, if electric is enough cheaper maybe trucking companies will be willing to have their loads take longer. I'm guessing a mix, cargo that needs to be there fast will run diesel fuel, less time sensitive cargo will run electric (but trains still compete well on cost for this)