When It Comes to the Environment, There Really Is No Such Thing as a “Good” Car
When It Comes to the Environment, There Really Is No Such Thing as a “Good” Car
The problem with the EV as a climate change remedy is that it is still a car.
Even if we had low-emissions, low-noise, low-accident cars, there'd still be the concrete jungle surface needed to drive them - and loads of emissions to make the steel and cement of highways.
Although cars carrying four or more people directly to a medium-distance destination can be relatively efficient per pers-km, people buy oversized cars imagining some dream holiday, then use them for daily life on one-person trips that (electric-) bicycles and/or trains could do - car-sharing could help avoid that and solve the EV-range issue (although personally, my dream holidays would be in places with no cars at all).*in the USA I bet this is pretty different in countries that have kept up with switching the grid to renewables.
Even still, each battery pack and the 6,000lb car put more strain on the mines, factories, and roads. Those resources could be used for stuff like ebikes where you only need a fraction of the power to get the bike to move forward.
EVs have their place, but eventually we are going to have to reckon with a post-car reality. Building trans, trams, BRTs (fast bus lines) and bike lanes will make cities faster to get around, without having to own a vehicle to get groceries a mile down the road. Making sidewalks comfortable and wider will also make stuff feel less shitty.
We'll probably get to a point where you can rent a vehicle if you really need it for remote areas, but day to day, you can pocket that insurance/maintenance/fuel/depreciation money and use it on something else.
That’s according to a peer-reviewed study funded by the Ford Motor Company, a company that makes most of its profits from gas-powered vehicles.
If you want to see if a tech is part of a renewable future, it is direct emissions that should be counted. EVs are at zero. They don't emit CO2 when running, when being produced or when being disposed of. They use electricity and transport, two things that we can provide without emitting CO2. They are a piece of the puzzle of a sustainable society, something thermal cars will never be, and something these graphs hide.
Of course we will be better off without cars and trucks, but the road towards them being totally gone is long, and it is time we don't have.
WRONG!! Velomobiles and other man-powered (or nature powered) land vehicles absolutely exist.
I'd argue if you're making the human more efficient than walking, you're reducing CO2 output compared to simply walking there.
If a reduction in human CO2 compared to distance traveled isn't good for the environment, then nothing is good for the environment.
Overall a good summation of most of the facts, however, they did gloss over an important issue with EVs and the grid.
Yes, the grid can handle the additional load with proper development, but adding any new load to the grid at this point will necessarily slow our transition away from fossil electricity, unless you somehow charge only during times of excess renewable energy. Currently, this is not possible.
Also, I think there’s lots of other useful things we might find to do with cheap excess energy that will be available at certain times. I don’t know exactly what but pumping or desalinating water is one possible idea. Sort of an inverse peaker plant—a cheap piece of infrastructure that may sit idle for a time but kicks on when there is more energy than we can use to do some practical work.
unless you somehow charge only during times of excess renewable energy. Currently, this is not possible.
This is possible in many European nations, who publish live data on renewal percentage.
In the Netherlands, I have the live green energy data in home assistant. This could quite easily be used to turn on and off car charging
Tibber even does it super easily for normies — you connect your EV account to it and it takes control of the charging rate such that your car is ready to go the next morning, but charges it during the cheapest periods (which generally are the greenest ones, when there's a sudden influx of solar or wind). AFAIK this even works if you're not on a dynamic pricing contract, you just obviously wouldn't get the price benefit.
Personally, I also got Home Assistant set up to remote start my large appliances in exactly the best moment to make use of the most green energy. Probably doesn't make a massive impact, but it doesn't cost me much either.