cars

[Joyrex]

1 hour ago, rhmilo said:

Spoken like someone who has numbers to back this up.

(Not doubting you, just curious)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/

Quote

Cars and trucks are responsible for roughly 24 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution—nearly 1.7 billion metric tons per year. Because those emissions come from hundreds of millions of tailpipes, this source of pollution seems difficult to control. Shifting it to hundreds of smokestacks at power plants that supply electricity to charge electric cars therefore seems like a more effective way to clean up the fleet.

But those smokestacks, many attached to coal-fired power plants, are the single-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., at two billion metric tons of CO2 per year.

 

[dingformung]

As this is all a simulation it shouldn't matter but it's a poorly designed simulation, so these things have consequences (who came up with this shit? Give me a name!)

[Joyrex]

16 minutes ago, dingformung said:

As this is all a simulation it shouldn't matter but it's a poorly designed simulation, so these things have consequences (who came up with this shit? Give me a name!)

[diatoms]

24 minutes ago, dingformung said:

As this is all a simulation it shouldn't matter but it's a poorly designed simulation, so these things have consequences (who came up with this shit? Give me a name!)

                                                        dingformung

[dingformung]

Why are screens used if you can use 3D realm for projections? WTF?

What's the point of that?

Are they an analogy to make you find the way out of the simulation, or are they another layer of confusion, to keep you inside?

A cruel joke or a benign guidance?

1 minute ago, diatoms said:

                                                        dingformung

Don't trust him

[zazen]

1 hour ago, Joyrex said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/

"Cars and trucks are responsible for roughly 24 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution—nearly 1.7 billion metric tons per year. Because those emissions come from hundreds of millions of tailpipes, this source of pollution seems difficult to control. Shifting it to hundreds of smokestacks at power plants that supply electricity to charge electric cars therefore seems like a more effective way to clean up the fleet.

But those smokestacks, many attached to coal-fired power plants, are the single-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., at two billion metric tons of CO2 per year."

This is a very simplistic take - that shifting to EVs will do no good.

1) at least with electric cars, we have the potential to move onto some other source of electricity (e.g. Norway is pretty good at this. And in the UK you can choose where your domestic electricity comes from, so all the electricity used in my house is purchased from renewable sources by my electricity provider).

2) This is comparing apples and oranges because you are comparing (electric car emissions + energy source to refuel car) vs (gas car emissions). The proper way to balance that equation is (electric car emissions + infrastructure to extract and provide power) vs (gas car emissions + massive global oil extractions and distribution system)

Taking point number 2 further we could basically say you have to look at a "full life cycle assessment" of making the vehicle and the infrastructure needed to refuel/recharge the vehicle ("well to tank") over its lifetime. Volkswagen did this recently to compare some of their own EV and ICE models:

https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/press-releases/electric-vehicles-with-lowest-co2-emissions-4886?s=09

VW says the EVs already have the edge and this will only improve over time as EV technology improves and energy sources continue to shift towards renewables

Edit: or here's another paper that looks at life cycle emissions of EVs in the USA and China under various scenarios https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231015002022

Edited June 17, 2021 by zazen

[Joyrex]

On 6/17/2021 at 5:07 PM, zazen said:

at least with electric cars, we have the potential to move onto some other source of electricity (e.g. Norway is pretty good at this. And in the UK you can choose where your domestic electricity comes from, so all the electricity used in my house is purchased from renewable sources by my electricity provider).

We have that in the US (in most states) as well - I have been using an electric provider since 2004 that produces 100% renewable energy via wind and solar. The reality is though, while choosing a provider that creates renewable energy does some good, the reality is the owners of the transmission network can't separate out the renewable vs the fossil fuel-based electricity, so you're still using "dirty" electricity in some capacity. Only until the majority of electric providers are 100% renewable will we have true "clean(er)" energy.

And yes, electric cars (once we get to that tipping point with renewable energy) do provide an option, and as more and more people and car manufacturers move to electric, that will help - but right now, we're polluting more by making electricity than what fossil fuel vehicles produce and that was my point.

[EdamAnchorman]

The reality is that people are going to want to drive avg. 15,000 mi/yr and that shifting the points of pollution from millions of point sources (internal combustion vehicles) to a few hundred power plants is still much better because even if those power plants are polluting, it's much easier to control the extra harmful stuff in those few hundred smokestacks than it is on millions of tailpipes.

A major problem with EVs is the upfront carbon cost that it takes to manufacture the batteries.  It takes quite a few years of that vehicle being in service before you overtake a typical ICE vehicle.

I have had an EV since 2017 and I love it.  Almost no maintenance, fun to drive, simple to own, "refueling" is more convenient, total cost of ownership is lower.  EVs are by no means a final solution but they're a good step until we find something better, especially if we can generate electricity with more renewable sources.  Also, they're talking about using EVs in the future to balance peaks and dips on the grid (always having your car plugged in when not in use), by drawing from or charging the battery as demand on the grid changes.  This would make existing power plants more efficient and thus less polluting.

[zazen]

1 hour ago, Joyrex said:

the reality is the owners of the transmission network can't separate out the renewable vs the fossil fuel-based electricity, so you're still using "dirty" electricity in some capacity.

I know what you mean but I take solace in the fact that electrons are all identical, so its all down to keeping track of how much energy I use, and making sure that same amount is purchased from a renewable provider. The accounting of those sums is as close as its possible to get.

[Joyrex]

54 minutes ago, randomsummer said:

The reality is that people are going to want to drive avg. 15,000 mi/yr and that shifting the points of pollution from millions of point sources (internal combustion vehicles) to a few hundred power plants is still much better because even if those power plants are polluting, it's much easier to control the extra harmful stuff in those few hundred smokestacks than it is on millions of tailpipes.

A major problem with EVs is the upfront carbon cost that it takes to manufacture the batteries.  It takes quite a few years of that vehicle being in service before you overtake a typical ICE vehicle.

I have had an EV since 2017 and I love it.  Almost no maintenance, fun to drive, simple to own, "refueling" is more convenient, total cost of ownership is lower.  EVs are by no means a final solution but they're a good step until we find something better, especially if we can generate electricity with more renewable sources.  Also, they're talking about using EVs in the future to balance peaks and dips on the grid (always having your car plugged in when not in use), by drawing from or charging the battery as demand on the grid changes.  This would make existing power plants more efficient and thus less polluting.

And when your EV reaches the end of its life (or the battery capacity becomes problematic) I guess we can hope by then we won't have a new problem on hand of what to do with all those toxic batteries from all the first generation EVs...

[EdamAnchorman]

1 hour ago, Joyrex said:

And when your EV reaches the end of its life (or the battery capacity becomes problematic) I guess we can hope by then we won't have a new problem on hand of what to do with all those toxic batteries from all the first generation EVs...

Depends on the battery type but the way that GM is designing them, their capacity at "end of life" for vehicular use will still be good enough that they can be used as powerwalls / backups for homes.

In instances where these large batteries will have to be recycled, we are lacking in that infrastructure currently and I'm hoping that it's just because there isn't enough of a market yet.  I'm hoping that once a large enough market exists, some companies will find a way to recycle the batteries in an environmentally-friendly way but I don't think that should stop us from moving forward with EVs to replace ICE vehicles.

Edited June 21, 2021 by randomsummer

[Joyrex]

1 hour ago, randomsummer said:

Depends on the battery type but the way that GM is designing them, their capacity at "end of life" for vehicular use will still be good enough that they can be used as powerwalls / backups for homes.

In instances where these large batteries will have to be recycled, we are lacking in that infrastructure currently and I'm hoping that it's just because there isn't enough of a market yet.  I'm hoping that once a large enough market exists, some companies will find a way to recycle the batteries in an environmentally-friendly way but I don't think that should stop us from moving forward with EVs to replace ICE vehicles.

I honestly hope we can get there... the biggest issue is fossil fuels are still too cheap to harvest, make, distribute, etc. (and profit from) compared to renewable sources. I kinda had hoped when they predicted we'd run out of fossil fuels 20 years ago (about now) would have actually happened if it weren't for fracking, which is like the root canal of refining and processing fuel...

[EdamAnchorman]

Those "run out of oil in X years" predictions were probably somewhat accurate at the time.  The thing is that oilfield tech keeps evolving and finding ways to extract more oil from difficult formations than we ever could before.

I don't know what's really driving the recent EV push, I'd venture a guess to say it's largely because of the "new tech" appeal and status symbol of Tesla, with environmental considerations secondary.  However, if that gets other major automakers into the game and gets normal people like me into "affordable" EVs, I'm for it.

[jaderpansen]

don't even have a licence, never felt the need to.

fuck em i say (cars).

[YangYing]

On 6/17/2021 at 11:22 PM, dingformung said:

As this is all a simulation it shouldn't matter but it's a poorly designed simulation, so these things have consequences (who came up with this shit? Give me a name!)

big love