Tesla's Dieselgate
pluralistic.net
pluralistic.net
This is what I'm most concerned about with the EV transition. How much are we going to spend -- not just monetarily, but with our planet -- to get to them? And when we get there, due to the extraction processes for batteries, are they better? These are genuine questions, I'd love to gain some perspective here. I'm by no means an expert. Seems like a lot to unpack.
Generally this article is... quite the indictment, and this is only one blurb.
All the lithium, the cobalt, what do we do with it later? Put it back where we got it from? What about the tire dust, microplastics are a major problem, these cars are heavy, so that problem is exacerbated.
What if we discover something else?
And And additional 50 tons of fossil fuels to build the car. And still uses tons of fossile fuel when consuming electricity, because that's how we make it, and renewable aren't gonna replace it entierly, as you can't realistically go above 80% wind and solar (and even those 80% are a theoretical limit, and reaxhing it is a massive deal…).
The only green car is the car you dont drive (nor own).
And the CO2 emissions for motive energy are also about an order of magnitude less. Nuclear, hydro wind and solar make up almost half the grid. Natgas turbines are twice as efficient as gasoline engines. EV's are 3x as efficient as gasoline cars.
But almost none of the marginal production, so everytime you get a new car, it runs almost entierely on fossile fuel…
Also, your 50t of fuel (that I tongue-in-cheek-ly reused) is complete BS: 6L per 100km, multiplied by 300 000km, times .75 (density of gasoline) you “only” get 13.5 tons.
What grid are you on? In the US, wind and solar comprise 80% of the marginal production in 2022 and almost 100% of the future planned marginal production
> 13.5 tons.
Sorry, the 50 ton calculation was for a truck that I did for a different debate.
I don't know where you got your figures from, but wind and solar can almost never be the marginal production means at all[1], given they have a marginal cost of almost zero…
[1] unless there some very strong anti-renewable regulation going on forcing the renewable to only supply power to the grid after a threshold, but I don't know who would want to build wind and solar in such a context…
Cars charge at night, so they help flatten the duck curve and use mostly base power. They're good complements to wind power, which is usually stronger at night.
That's not what this word means though.
> Cars charge at night, so they help flatten the duck curve and use mostly base power
When the car is being used for daily commute, yes, but not when travelling (IIRC the majority of gas consumption is caused by long-distance travelling in my country).
> They're good complements to wind power, which is usually stronger at night
Do you have a source for that?Because me personal experience suggest the opposite actually.
> When the car is being used for daily commute, yes, but not when travelling (IIRC the majority of gas consumption is caused by long-distance travelling in my country).
Citation definitely needed, I strongly disbelieve this.
Even our 500 miles trip mostly use night energy -- charge overnight for the first 320 on cheap night electricity, add 200 halfway in between at expensive rates, and recharge to full at destination at cheap night rates.
> Do you have a source for that?Because me personal experience suggest the opposite actually.
First one that showed up in my Google: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma...
Even where it's not true, the production delta between night and day is lower than the demand delta between night day, so wind provides a disproportionate share of power at night.
Also don't forget that fossil fuels are used to transport the fossil fuels to your fossil fuel-burning car. The "EVs are just as bad" crowd act like everyone pumps and refines their own fuel in their back yard.
A broader conversation about consumption habits and their environmental impact in the western world is completely valid and sorely needed, but arguing that the transition to EVs isn’t worth it because there are other negative impacts is just plain defeatist. Slowing the rate at which we are pumping carbon into the atmosphere is virtually the only thing that matters at this moment.
Our family is trying our best to cut down on consumption habits, from growing our own food to generally trying to be less wasteful of gas, electricity, etc., but it is difficult: we grew up in these conditions and "cutting the cord" is a tough thing to do.
I'd like to do whatever _really really helps us_ in the long run, you know? If that means EV conversion then so be it.
If we really want to conquer climate change, it starts by forcing the market to internalize the economic costs rather than passing them onto the taxpayer (and individual). Policies like cap and trade, polluter pays, and so on, are what's most effective at curbing climate change. Incentivizing proactive shifts (and penalizing laggards) towards renewable resources in manufacturing are what's required.
No, it's probably a bet on other things, like future profitability from selling more cars.
The essay's argument was a little thin for me, even though I generally agree with it. But, I thought the site's shrink-wrap waiver was pretty funny.
The author clearly doesn’t like the world we’re moving toward where many capabilities are sold as subscriptions. I don’t either, but I don’t see it as morally wrong for a manufacturer to sell the same hardware with software-limited capabilities at a lower price. The devil is in the details when it comes to whether it’s a consumer friendly or unfriendly decision.