Good.
I’m all for giving credit where credit is due.
I wouldn’t take it too strongly yet.
Actually fueling a car is only something like 60 - 80% of the total carbon cost. Rest is manufacturing and disposal. Evs hold considerable costs (carbon, waste, human suffering) in terms of manufacturing and disposal, and only really pay off if their power is created in sustainable ways - otherwise you’re just pushing the problems out of sight.
Now I’m going to go off on some non sourced reporting here because it was given to me in a car-radio news, but the pollution caused by the construction is about equal if not a little more, but different; in terms of EV’s than ICE. However the expected lifetime use of a EV is expected to make up for that and more to a end result of less than half at a minimum before needing disposal. By your own argument you are aware the vast amount of emissions are from the ICE use itself.
Speculation: with new battery technology increasing over time, that lifetime gap may even increase.
This is all of course if you’re arguing in good faith and are willing to also recognize the difference between generalized ‘pollutants’ and environmental impacts and carbon impacts.
That’s a very weird comment - first part is really hard to read and you’ve accused me of not arguing in good faith without anything to suggest as much. If im reading this correctly
- Evs are comparable in manufacturing carbon. I don’t have the numbers but believe Evs are much higher due to rare earth mining, and that is before considering the environmental damage due to mining, social costs involved and considering the lack of standards where they are mined. Make no mistake, fossil fuel mining isn’t much better in this regard but it is a well known beast.
You then have the whole argument on how that power is actually generated. Mass power generation is much more efficient than small ICE, but it does still add up if its not using renewable sources.
Regarding battery efficiency- yes I agree they will get better the same way ICE did.
The other point is that the EV swap delays other advances - walkable cities, car centric infrastructure, mass transportation. If we cut carbon by 50% but it delays 0% by decades did we actually achieve anything?
Fair point on the readability of the first paragraph, I’ve edited a little bit to clarify it’s about pollution. And I’m agreeing with you on the first paragraph, construction of EV does induce more or equal pollution, but it’s different sources of pollution, EV have the availability to have the most important part (batteries) easily recyclable. Once enough batteries hit the market to meet demand, recycled batteries could replace the majority of the market, replacing mining. Or new batteries; sodium? Who knows, the future could hold some wild advances!?
The big part of a power grid source is that it can be modular, in a area still running on coal can shut down dirty power plants and connect clean ones, a ICE will stay a ICE until you get a new car, which the current argument is that the production of cars is dirty and should be reduced as much as it could - I agree on that
I can’t quite understand the final paragraph… I don’t understand the 50% and 0%, and while walkable cities are good to strive for, it’s comparing apples to oranges.
While it could have been phrased differently, I very well did believe you could be arguing in good faith, there has been such a mix of people who have genuine concerns, and others that want to believe it’s a fad for one reason or other. But I would like to say I genuinely do hope you’re in the first group.
China’s energy grid is about 80% fossil fuels. Assuming their energy mixture remains unchanged (a bad assumption as their coal usage is on the decline) it would take about 65,000 miles for an EV’s carbon output to break even with an equivalent ICE vehicle.
The waste and suffering involved in carbon intensive fuels is ongoing instead of being single event. One benefit of renewable tech is the recyclability of it’s components. Once we’re made the battery it can be recycled and died not require ongoing extractive mining forever.
EVs have a place in a just future and can do some good at this time. Alternatives to cars are still a far more important and uncomplicated solution to our climate problems
To start with I fully agree with your last paragraph- no arguement here.
You’re right on recyclability, the problem is that they aren’t because the infrastructure isn’t in place or profitable. There is also the fact the earth doesn’t actually contain enough of the rare earth minerals to give everyone an EV (This is off memory, cant place the source).
So what I’m hearing is EVs have a 60-80% lower carbon cost?
Yes, if you are only considering the individual’s carbon cost and power is generated via 100% renewable means.
Something like 80% of China power is fossil fuels. Admittedly large scale power generation is more fuel efficient, and I don’t have the full numbers of carbon cost of manufacturing, but its important to keep in mind that carbon costs didn’t just disappear overnight.
Another consideration is that Evs still drove car centric culture. If each EV saved 50% of a vehicles lifetime carbon, but it doubled the time for mass transport to be more widely adopted, lengthened the time for cities to prioritize other means of transport and city design, and means we as a society made 50% more vehicles did we actually save anything?
You’re forgetting the amount of energy required to extract, transport, and refine the oil. Refining the oil is especially energy intense. It’s not even up for debate at this point unless you’re a naive boomer taking in the Faux News.
If we go down that path you’re also forgetting the energy costs of manufacturing, distribution, installation and maintenance of the renewable producers. Definitely haven’t forgotten the need for a snarky comment though.
You can say “this is better, forget everything else” or you can look at the wider systematic concerns and solutions and actually succeed.
Better headline
" China’s EV Revolution Slows Oil Demand "
What is with these headlines these days… “Fueling a slowdown”.
Editors love puns
China’s EV’s putting brakes on oil demand
Oil demand deceleration is up in country where demand for non battery vehicles is down. China.
They sort of bury the lede by only mentioning it once in the tagline. Their consumption is also down because there is a massive widespread shift to using CNG/LNG in industrial vehicles/transport trucks instead of diesel, which is a majority driver of oil consumption in China’s production-based economy.
True, but IIUC, the energy/mass of carbon might be better than diesel.
You are right, according to the Wikipedia:
CNG/LNG:CNG’s energy density is the same as liquefied natural gas at 53.6 MJ/kg.
About 86.1% of diesel fuel mass is carbon, and when burned, it offers a net heating value of 43.1 MJ/kg as opposed to 43.2 MJ/kg for gasoline.
It also burns ridiculously cleaner as it does not have the typical long hydrocarbons and sulfur/metal contaminants that otherwise turn into air pollution. It’s a smart choice in the short term.
Fueling a slowdown? Doesn’t sound right.
That headline is a race track that leads to a brick wall.
I need a car because I live in a semi-rural area outside city limits the nearest public transportation would be a 2-mile walk including crossing a four-lane highway. I’m under no illusions that driving an EV will solve climate change, but boy would I like to never have to fill my car up in the middle of an Indiana February again.
I had coworkers that had all electric EVs (both had nissan leafs) 5 years ago and they both said it was like 7 dollars a month as a daily 60 mile per day commuter.
Aside from Teslas (which are afaik impossible to repair) the estimate is that due to fewer moving parts the lifetime maintenance costs are 2/3 the cost of gas vehicles AND the vehicles are expected to last longer in general (no giant gas engine that needs to be rebuilt every 200,000 miles)
This is one place where like gas car companies see this and keep trying to kick the can down the road
Today I sold my beloved 2008 Mini, partly because, while the engine was still completely sound at 130k miles (barring the turbo that blew up three years ago), the rest of the car was beginning to fall apart. One of the rear light clusters kept shorting, interior panels worked themselves loose, the AC stopped working, the self leveling mechanism in one of the headlights broke. And so on, and so on.
I’m genuinely sad that I had to let it go, but it was on the cusp of being a massive pain in the ass to sort out.
But that engine was still solid.
I had a Lexus ES350 that had a melting dash, and the recall for it has ended a year prior to me having the issue. Essentially the dash was engineered to be easier to recycle/break down - but inadvertently had a lifetime limitation to it. The rest of the car was in decent enough shape and didn’t give me any real problems. There were alternate solutions to fixing the dash, but once you start talking 200000 miles on a chassis - you’re gonna start replacing things. Touched surfaces start breaking down; things with less robust parts (cd player) start having issues etc. Overall the entire package just starts looking tired, and replacing the whole thing looks more attractive than trying to find parts for a fifteen year old car. Perhaps modularization in the future can help. For instance I wouldn’t have minded replacing the audio system in the car - but it was very much a specialized installation that wasn’t a standardized “double din” setup. Also trying to find basic comforts like replacement seat cushions or leather to match gets tricky after the manufacturer stops keeping stock.
Why is Biz Insider so insistent on being cringe on top of being a worthless capitalist propaganda rag
Why is the title written so badly. Can’t journalists write a normal descriptive headline.
deleted by creator
Yeah I’m no fan of the CCP to put it mildly but they are doing great work when it comes to EVs and renewables as well from what I can tell. Good to call it out, would like to see some more competition from elsewhere but either way let’s hope the trend continues or accelerates.
having a command economy controlled by a one-party state that can literally dictate “ok you’re eco friendly now” is pretty convenient
it’s just, y’know. the rest of the other imperialistic genocide bullshit…
The fact that China is called genocidal while the US and Europe give unlimited military support to Israel is really something.
It is not an exclusive or. I was not calling America not-genocidal, but the fact that you automatically assumed I said that just because I said something anti-China is very telling.
My point is China isn’t accused of doing anything close to what Israel is doing, yet the West condemns China and gives weapons to Israel. This cheapens and weakens the accusation of genocide and discredits the concept itself.
Genocide is the crime of crimes. It shouldn’t be used as a technicality to score political points.
In case you haven’t noticed yet, many if not most people around here aren’t exactly rabid supporters of the mainstream politicians doing the whole supporting of Genocidal ethno-Fascists doing their very own Holocaust, and that’s especially so for people who have Ecological concerns - and who would be atracted to this specific post - since said politicians also tend to be neoliberals who at best given lip service to Environmentalism.
You seem to having a knee-jerk reaction on the whole China subject and letting your prejudices cloud your judgement in a big way.
They’ll all fucking vote for genocidal ethno-Fascists doing their very own Holocaust. They don’t actually care.
One commits it, one supplies arms to a third being investigated for it (we at confirmed yet?). Its murder vs manslaughter or association to murder.
Except in this case there’s no murder. China is accused of reducing birth rates, not mass killing. Regardless of whether the accusation is true, any serious person can see there’s a very clear difference.
Also, you can definitely be charged with murder if you were critical in providing the murder weapon and facilitating the murder.
Genocide includes deliberately manipulating birth rates - killing isn’t actually required.
Every other genocide in history has been accompanied by mass killing and mass detention and mass displacement. That’s what makes genocide the crime of crimes. It’s a horror with no parallel.
I think there’s a serious problem if you can have a bloodless genocide by technicality.
They compete through lower worker protections / wages and environmental regulations than even the US.
Let’s not call exploitation “great work”.
looks at China
Manufacturing labour costs were $8.31 per hour in China last year, compared with less than $3 in places such as India, Thailand and Vietnam. - The Economist
looks at Mexico
Anyway, manufacturing in China is a low-skill role that employs a huge proportion of the market. In terms of social/cultural value, its closest parallel in the US would be the retail services sector.
“The king is not England, and England is not the king!”
The PRC is not China, and China is not the PRC!
From a exterior perspective China is not it’s people. It’s people are silenced. China’s words and actions are only those of the leadership. It would be wonderful if we heard the voice of the people when dealing with China. Sadly we have to deal with their subjugators.
China is not the PRC
Tell that to the PRC.
Yeah, the king is a nice guy looking after us idiots!
Another benefit to the sanctions against Chinese EVs - gotta protect those oil profits!
