It’s pretty much known that using an electric car, even if the electricity comes from a fossil fuel plant is far, far, more environmentally friendly than internal combustion engines. Sure, it’s not the perfect ideal, but it is a significant step in the right direction. Bringing up fossil fuel burned to make electricity as a deterrent to electrical car adoption is disingenuous at best.
Also it sets the stage to replace the electricity source with nuclear or renewable sources. It’s a lot easier to replace a single generating facility then millions of private cars.
My commute has only ever been about 40 miles round trip. It’s been the best car purchase I’ve ever made, in decades of buying vehicles. Sure, I’m not taking any road trips in it, but there are easy ways around that. I actually budgeted an extra $200 on my electric bill, about what I spent on gas on my other vehicle, and it just wasn’t even close to that. Well, getting closer these days, but the cost of electricity has gone up a bit. Still, financially, a great deal.
For comparison purposes, let’s take the most popular EV currently sold right now which is the model 3 long range as our test case. This car in the worst conditions (cold) goes around 240 miles (a far cry from the 300+ it’s advertised to have I might add) and uses 72kWh to do so. This means, in the worst case scenario, the car is using .3kWh of battery per mile.
Now for the power plant. Let’s use coal as our power source. Coal power emits approximately 2.26 pounds of CO2 per KWh produced. If we take our numbers from earlier, then the model 3 driving in the cold results in .678 pounds of co2 per mile being emitted at the power plant if it is charged using coal power. This is still about 30% less emissions than the ICE vehicle per mile. If the car was powered by natural gas then the percentage grows to around 70%.
Of course there are other factors involved such as other pollutants emitted during power productions (especially when burning coal). However, a lot of these are also produced by ICE vehicles. It’s much easier to have centralized sources of pollution rather than millions of them spread out over the place. Another thing to note is that EVs take more emissions to produce, but is mostly offset over the lifespan of the vehicles due to their low maintenance. EV batteries can also be recycled, though they are usually used in power storage instead of new vehicles.
30% is better than nothing and for the majority of people that number would be much higher (different power mixes and climates). It’s not like power plans have to be converted before we switch to EVs or vice versa. We should be doing everything we can to reduce emissions whether that is making new solar power plants or switching from ICE vehicles to electric.
I will add that EVs don’t actually solve the problem and other solutions like increasing public transportation and shifting away from car culture would have a much greater impact overall. The purpose of EVs wasn’t to “save the environment”, but to sell people more new, expensive vehicles with the illusion that they will save the environment while lining the pockets of those who helped to destroy it. They do help and something is better than nothing, but it still isn’t enough.
Is not and you know it. Stop
Removed by mod
It’s pretty much known that using an electric car, even if the electricity comes from a fossil fuel plant is far, far, more environmentally friendly than internal combustion engines. Sure, it’s not the perfect ideal, but it is a significant step in the right direction. Bringing up fossil fuel burned to make electricity as a deterrent to electrical car adoption is disingenuous at best.
Also it sets the stage to replace the electricity source with nuclear or renewable sources. It’s a lot easier to replace a single generating facility then millions of private cars.
There’s also home solar panels to consider. I imagine there’s a significant overlap between people who have EVs and people who have solar panels.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Sorry bud. I bought a used Leaf for about $11k a good 5-6 years ago. I’m poor as shit.
Who cares why they bought it. We don’t run on values. You are a nonsense talker.
Facts have vanquished you. Now begone troll
Huh?
Removed by mod
My commute has only ever been about 40 miles round trip. It’s been the best car purchase I’ve ever made, in decades of buying vehicles. Sure, I’m not taking any road trips in it, but there are easy ways around that. I actually budgeted an extra $200 on my electric bill, about what I spent on gas on my other vehicle, and it just wasn’t even close to that. Well, getting closer these days, but the cost of electricity has gone up a bit. Still, financially, a great deal.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Very unlikely a tesla would make it with charging stations every 400km - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/angry-tesla-customers-sue-firm-over-grossly-exaggerated-ev-range/
Don’t make claims if you’re not even going to take the 15 seconds to do a search to verify.
Removed by mod
If we are talking solely about power usage from the grid then, even in the worst case scenarios, EVs are much cleaner than ICE vehicles.
For example, the average gas car emits around 441g or about .972 pounds worth of CO2 per mile.
For comparison purposes, let’s take the most popular EV currently sold right now which is the model 3 long range as our test case. This car in the worst conditions (cold) goes around 240 miles (a far cry from the 300+ it’s advertised to have I might add) and uses 72kWh to do so. This means, in the worst case scenario, the car is using .3kWh of battery per mile.
Now for the power plant. Let’s use coal as our power source. Coal power emits approximately 2.26 pounds of CO2 per KWh produced. If we take our numbers from earlier, then the model 3 driving in the cold results in .678 pounds of co2 per mile being emitted at the power plant if it is charged using coal power. This is still about 30% less emissions than the ICE vehicle per mile. If the car was powered by natural gas then the percentage grows to around 70%.
Of course there are other factors involved such as other pollutants emitted during power productions (especially when burning coal). However, a lot of these are also produced by ICE vehicles. It’s much easier to have centralized sources of pollution rather than millions of them spread out over the place. Another thing to note is that EVs take more emissions to produce, but is mostly offset over the lifespan of the vehicles due to their low maintenance. EV batteries can also be recycled, though they are usually used in power storage instead of new vehicles.
Removed by mod
30% is better than nothing and for the majority of people that number would be much higher (different power mixes and climates). It’s not like power plans have to be converted before we switch to EVs or vice versa. We should be doing everything we can to reduce emissions whether that is making new solar power plants or switching from ICE vehicles to electric.
I will add that EVs don’t actually solve the problem and other solutions like increasing public transportation and shifting away from car culture would have a much greater impact overall. The purpose of EVs wasn’t to “save the environment”, but to sell people more new, expensive vehicles with the illusion that they will save the environment while lining the pockets of those who helped to destroy it. They do help and something is better than nothing, but it still isn’t enough.
Removed by mod
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2833-the-environmental-footprint-of-electric-versus-fossil-cars#:~:text=So on the basis of,phases of a life cycle.
Can just Google it. Not hard
Removed by mod