You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
People love this "gotcha", but really it just shows how terrible cars are on a fundamental level.
The solution isn't electric cars, it's electric micromobility and public transport.
It's always "ah ha but did you know it's only 80% better for the planet? Gotcha, idiot!" Like yeah, we know.
The best solution is not to drive at all, but if we're forced to in this backwards country that has been mislead to believe public transport is a bad thing then we might as well take the option that's 80% better rather than 0% better
Gasoline cars produce, on average, about ten times more lifetime pollution compared to manufacturing pollution. So even if electric car manufacturing pollutes a bit more, it more than makes up for it over its lifetime of driving.
Your other claim that batteries can't be recycled is false. And that recycling pollutes more. More than 90% of battery materials by mass can and do get recycled - and the expectation is to reach 98+%. Recycling process is expected to produce less pollution and be cheaper than mining the equivalent amounts of material.
I don't get how the "lithium batteries can't be recycled" idea passes the sniff test.
Lithium mining requires moving insane amounts of earth to reach the ore: often a pit mine. Said ore contains around 1-2% Lithium Oxide by weight -- which still needs to be refined and processed into Lithium metal.
A battery is around 11% Lithium by weight.
There's money to be made, and people are already on it.
Permanently Deleted
Yes, we know all of that. It's still better than driving fossil fuels. Something that is only partially better is still better. It doesn't mean we just keep doing what we have been because "oh but it's only partially better".
There is no silver bullet solution right now. Batteries get better and easier every year. Alternatives will crop up. You're not proving your point, you just come off as unwilling to change but hiding behind thin "eco" reasoning.
Again, to really drive it home. We know they're not perfect. They're just better than the alternative. Better does not mean perfect.
Hate to be that guy, but it takes 20 tons of carbon to make a sedan and 5 tons to make the ev battery to run it (8 if you use the cheap kind). So even before the difference in emissions between gas and electricity come into play the ev is five or six years of driving behind the gas car it’s supposed to replace.
For a huge number of people the greenest car they can own is the one they already have.
That was literally, like, my exact point. Yes we know all of that, how many times do I have to say that? We literally know what you're talking about.
It's still better, over the life of the car you will come out better than a fossil fuel car. Consumption of anything anywhere pollutes, and the best option is to not buy a car at all (hello public transit funding, we need you). However, over the entire life of the car you will come out ahead, and the more EVs that are sold the easier it will be to produce. This month alone there are two firms who are claiming they have alternatives to lithium for the battery base. One claims they can use salt. We will continue to see improvements with battery production as it scales.
Please stop with the "gotcha" style and try to instead try to see other people's sides. Yes, I take public transit and walk whenever I can, but in my city I still need a car for a few things, and my old car is dying. So, faced with buying a new car, I would rather have one that doesn't pollute while I'm sitting in traffic that encourages auto makers to not just give in but to push green initiatives. Will it work? I don't know, but it's better than just giving up and saying "well acksually it's still ruining our planet just slower"
Oh and by the way, your numbers are wrong.
Despite the environmental footprint of manufacturing lithium-ion batteries, this technology is much more climate-friendly than the alternatives, Shao-Horn says.
That link says that the battery alone takes 4-16 tons of carbon to produce. It doesn’t say anything about the actual chassis and other stuff in the car. So somewhere between 24 and 36 tons of carbon for a new ev to start rolling down the street versus the yearly emissions of the gas car it’s supposed to replace. based on the link you posted that’s six to nine years of emissions before you can even start comparing them mile for mile.
I’m not saying this to suggest that there’s no point in trying or that somehow evs aren’t greener than comparable gas cars but to state that if the goal is to make tremendous reductions in carbon output then a gigantic bubble of carbon rich consumption isn’t the way to go.
We can’t reduce carbon output in the short to medium term by replacing a bunch of cars. We can reduce it by not driving as much.
None of this is a gotcha or an attack on you personally. It’s just stating the fact that keeping existing cars on the road and reducing the amount they’re driven is a really viable path that doesn’t require the insanity of lithium batteries or for some new technology to replace them.
I tried to make that point in a way that put production up front as the best place to turn the carbon spigot off, but in case that’s not clear: consumers can’t change what gets produced and by extension how it is produced.
Yes, we know, but the alternative isn't "just don't buy one because it doesn't matter anyway", it's "Do the best we can as consumers to make smart, green choices". Vote with our wallets that we do want greener alternatives rather than giving up. If a battery comes along that is more eco friendly than lithium I'll probably buy that one.
A better way to phrase what you said to encourage people to go green is to say "Absolutely going electric is a smart choice, it'll reduce your personal emissions by a substantial amount, but remember that to public transit/walking are still the greenest options. We can also always demand from the companies we buy from that they should use greener manufacturing as well."
Don't just point out the flaws in a way that comes off as "We shouldn't even try because what's the point". We can both be better ourselves and demand companies hold themselves to even higher standards, it's not one or the other.
Sorry, sometimes it’s hard to make myself understood. Consumption is not in any way a solution to climate change.
Boycotts don’t work, you can’t change the carbon impact of production at the point of consumption because the carbon has already been released. Voting with your wallet doesn’t work.
We should not spend even one iota of time concerned with how to make greener choices as individuals and instead work on stopping pollution at the point of production.
If it’s not clear: climate change comes from the release of greenhouse gasses and that doesn’t happen more or less depending on what I swipe my credit card to buy.
That's a very selfish way to look at it. "Nothing I can do so fuck it". But there is. I agree with you, we should demand change in production, but you're also being selfish just giving up and not altering your lifestyle just because "it's already been made".
Boycotts do work. If people actually followed through with them, and yeah, I'm boycotting any more fossil fuels in my house. 1 person doesn't mean a whole lot, but if cynics like you started actually changing it might.
The written word can really be a boondoggle sometimes.
At no point do I say “fuck it”. Boycotts don’t work (here I’m talking about consumer boycotts not boycotts paired with radical action like Montgomery or possibly bds). Pollution needs to be attacked at the point of production.
It’s not selfish to recognize this. It’s not selfish to suggest that the solution to climate change is not consumption. What does it look like to you to shut pollution off at the source? That’s not doing nothing.
There’s plenty of lifestyle alterations coming down the pike. No one is missing out on their medicine except through death.
That 5% number seems extremely low to me. Is that maybe for all lithium batteries, like in phones and laptops? Or is that just car batteries?
The thing is, the vast majority of cars end up being stripped and recycled at the end of their life. Plenty of sources quote an 80+% recycling rate by weight. EV car batteries aren't going to just be thrown in the landfill, the materials are just too valuable. If they aren't being recycled now, I would expect they're being resold or stored until recycling capacity gets better.
You don't know. You said it.
Electric cars are certainly better. The climate crisis is extremely bad. A significant percentage of the Earth will no longer be livable without AC within decades. Much of our ecosystems depended on a temperature range we won't see again within our lifetimes. It's much more likely to be our great filter than batteries are.
Someday we'll envy how popular the Baby Boomers were in their old age. They didn't understand, we do. We should be rioting, everywhere.
(I understand busses and trains are better still, I'm just addressing their not knowing which is worse)
The ~90,000 shipping freighters that operate daily use twice the amount of fuel than all ~2.5 billion cars that are on the roads globally. We're electrifying the wrong shit.
And how do you plan on electrifying such massive ships?
Electrifying cars is easy and electrified railways have existed for more than a century now, but good luck electrifying airplanes or cargo ships, they’re just too big and don’t run on tracks
Gotta try first, got a whole world filled with specialists in various areas of expertise that could if they actually had the backing and funding of their governments and their voters to make a concerted effort in developing a solution. But that's not profitable, ergo under capitalism, not financially viable.
Start with banning nonessentials such as cruise ships and get rid of private jets while we're at it, to start at least.
An electric car is easy, 2.5 billion electric cars not so much. One electric ocean faring vessel is difficult, but once you can 90,000 is easy. And like I said, 90,000 cargo vessel are using twice the fuel resources of those 2.5 billion cars. That's approx ~56,000 electric cars vs one electric cargo vessal
Just thinking out loud here, but if the main problem with building 2.5 billion EVs is making the batteries, why would that change anything if those 90,000 cargo ships each need 56,000 EV's worth of batteries? I'm sure there's some efficiency to be gained by making larger batteries, but it still doesn't quite add up.
Of course this also assuming a cargo ship is as efficient as a car in terms of replacing the ICE with an electric motor. I've heard the fuel these cargo ships use is some of the worst quality fuel that we have and it doesn't burn well, but it's very cheap in the insane quantities they need.
why would that change anything if those 90,000 cargo ships each need 56,000 EV's worth of batteries?
That's not how scaling works, big is easier, small is harder. Also we'd be replacing 56,000 cars worth of fuel storage on that cargo ship too. We can make non lithium batteries for mass storage, but they're the size of a house, couldn't get one in my car, but something tells me a cargo ship could carry it.
I think with ships a good starting point would be making them burn cleaner fuel. The heavy oil they're currently burning on ocean trips isn't exactly the cleanest fuel around, having ships burn the gasoline we save from electric cars would already do a lot.
Now this is a more reasonable take, first try finding a more sustainable fuel to use then think of a way to electrify it (if at all possible)
It's way easier to electrify cars than cargo ships, because you can refuel/recharge cars every few kilometres. This is simply not possible with ships, other more expensive technologies like hydrogen or artificial fuels are needed. Electrifying cars also helps to reduce other emissions like nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which is good for your health.
That's actually not true, right? https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-co2-emissions-from-transport-by-sub-sector-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2000-2030
In 2019 there are 6.08 Gt from road vehicles compared to the 0.87 Gt from shipping. That's just overwhelming.
I'm speaking on base resource consumption, not emissions. And the main factor for shipping having less emissions is due to mass transit, this is why they say promoting mass transit is better than improving fuel efficiency or emissions in personal vehicles.
But I thought climate change was all my fault, and that if I just use less water in my garden everything will be fixed.
Are you saying that the news lied to me?!?
/s
It is all our fault, just not for the reasons you mentioned. It's our fault for allowing it to happen, it's out fault for voting for capitalism, it's our fault for being undereducated, it's our fault for not stopping it. The problem isn't that it's our fault, the problem is that we haven't killed anyone over their exploitation of us and our planet yet, except ourselves.
Society breeds civility through cowardice, we know this because it's immortal to attack a bad actor.
Giant flexible solar sails on shipping freighters powering the engines and catching wind could be an interesting and old school way of moving products. I think possibly direct airship shipping would be more interesting. Tens of thousands of slow moving solar powered airships moving freight without having to deal with multiple transportation solutions.
Pickup at factory, move across ocean on airship, deliver to customer. Much better than pickup at warehouse deliver to terminal, move to carrier, carrier moves it to terminal, load on ship, cross world, unload off ship, loads container onto train, train take container to yard, stores at yard, loaded onto truck, deliver to terminal.
I don't know either, but thinking about all the pollution it takes to refine and transport the fuel, I still think electric cars pollute much less.