Skeumorphism in automotive design
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufac....
https://caniuse.com/url-scroll-to-text-fragment
Too bad it doesn't work on Firefox.
Estimates seem to vary, but this is claiming that there's about 12 kg of lithium in a 70 kwh Tesla battery: https://www.quora.com/How-much-lithium-in-kg-is-used-in-an-e...
So, that's 180 kg of CO2 for enough lithium to make a large car battery. If your first quote is actually referring to 15 tons of CO2 per ton of lithium carbonate mined, then there's 63 kg of that, the mining of which causes about 945 kg of CO2 emissions.
Burning a gallon of gas emits about 9 kg of CO2. A car that gets 30 miles to the gallon will burn about 6700 gallons of gas over a 200,000 mile lifetime, resulting in 60,000 kg of CO2 emissions.
There are other environmental issues with mining lithium and cobalt and other energy costs involved in making the batteries, but CO2 emissions from mining is way down there on the list of things to be worried about.
The efficiency of an IC car can be in the low 20%s. And cars burn a fuel with a higher C:H ratio than natural gas.
EVs are way more energy-efficient than ICE vehicles. Something like 80% of the energy from the gas you put in your car is wasted.
Why? And if not, why can't we apply your argument to other things, eg, coal power plants?
>Even if you could get rid of most cars, that wouldn't be enough, and it wouldn't be able to happen quickly enough to avoid electrification.
Estimates for the lifetime CO2 savings of EVs vary from 40% to 70%. Assuming the be best case (70%), the CO2 impact would only be the same as "getting rid of most cars", which you say isn't enough.
Comfort, convenience, speed, separation from other people, etc, etc. Changing the balance there requires significant investment in alternatives which doesn't seem to be forthcoming (at least in my country).
We can't apply the same arguments to power plants because we don't have to go to / see / interact with the power plant in order to use electricity. It just appears at the wall socket like magic. Where it comes from is functionally irrelevant to the consumer.
Didn't realise these were valid arguments in the face of the Climate Catastrophe!
>It just appears at the wall socket like magic.
It's by far the most convenient and quickest to burn coal.
If you are observing that electricity is currently being produced with some fossil fuels, I will respond that we should get rid of fossil generating capacity. This does not require getting rid of electric cars.
In the ultimate zero fossil fuel economy, we can still build and operate electric cars. This will not involve any release of CO2 whatsoever; do you imagine this would create carbon atoms out of nothing?
It just appears, fully-made and with no CO2 spent on its manufacture?
The anti-EV argument is deliberate confusion of the former with the latter.
There is no inherent CO2 emission required in construction and operation of an electric car. This is unlike gasoline powered cars, where petroleum has to be involved in their fueling.
From a policy point of view, an EV that replaces a gasoline car is a good thing, even if there is at the moment some CO2 emission in the construction and operation of the EV. It reduces CO2 emission in the near term, while also pushing EVs down their experience curves to enable total replacement (and abolition of CO2 emission) in the far term.
By your same argument, I could say that there's no inherent CO2 emission required to manufacture petrol (as in, there theoretically is a way to do it).
>The anti-EV argument is deliberate confusion of the former with the latter.
I'm not confused about the distinction between the two. The pro-EV crowd seem happy to ignore the former, as long as it's far away, or could be solved by some as yet unimplemented technology.
The pro-EV people are not ignoring the distinction here. Stop putting your lies in other peoples' mouths.
They're not even arguments.
I'm not saying that people should keep driving.
I'm answering the question "why aren't cars going away".
Unless you think that people just aren't aware that public transport / riding / walking is more environmentally friendly than driving, the only conclusion I can come up with is that people care more about the factors I mentioned than environmental impact (or at least, that time-discounting of delayed negative externalities is significant).
> It's by far the most convenient and quickest to burn coal.
For who? I'm talking about the factors that influence consumer choice, not producers.
The person I replied to said (paraphrasing) "Why aren't cars going away? If they aren't, why can't you make the same arguments about coal power plants".
I'm saying:
- Cars aren't going away because they are much better than any available alternative for a large number of people from a short term perspective
- The same can't be said of coal power because electricity is electricity is electricity, there is no immediate difference, so the longer term differences have a greater impact on decision making
My reading was that you were comparing physical presence of cars + coal plants and also the negative externalities of coal plants but not accounting for the negative externalities of cars.
But I may have misread and I apologize if I did :)
Figure out how to convince people to do it worldwide, figure out how to replace all auto transport with other modes, then build those alternate modes. I'll bet that will take longer and result in more CO2 emissions than electrifying cars.
We don't solve global warming by fantasizing about deleting cars, we solve it with good engineering and passable policy.
lol (sorry for not being funny to you)