6 ms·

>"Why bother doing anything here as China is polluting so much? The reality is that we have to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. All. That includes every ton

by ppf 5y ago

>"Why bother doing anything here as China is polluting so much? The reality is that we have to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. All. That includes every tonne we release here, in our home country. No matter what <insert another country> does, we have to stop our pollution here Now." Exporting your CO2 emissions to other countries (in the form of battery manufacture) does not achieve this goal. If anything, it's worse, because other countries like China will happily burn brown coal to power their factories. And if it really is so important to stop CO2 emissions, then I'm surprised the author of this article raved about the touchscreens and other electronic gadgets present in all EVs, as they are incredibly resource- and energy- intensive to manufacture (equivalent to the energy needed to drive 1000s of miles), and are not necessary. In fact, I'm surprised the author can tell us that we should enjoy the driving pleasure of EVs, which seems a completely luxurious thing in an article telling us we need to make significant changes to our lifestyle to save the environment. Also - the author only managed 1000km in one year on an ebike? That's embarassing, and makes it hard to justify the manufacturing expense in energy and materials of the battery and motor. I've had to start driving to work on more days, as I don't have the energy now I have two kids, but I still manage 2,500km of commuting per year on a regular bike (which is older than me), and on a very hilly route.

user-the-name 5y ago
> Exporting your CO2 emissions to other countries (in the form of battery manufacture) This does not make sense. Battery manufacture is no way equivalent to ICE emissions.
- ppf 5y ago
  >Battery manufacture is no way equivalent to ICE emissions. How is it not? It takes a huge amount of energy to manufacture a battery pack (you spend about the first 1/3rd to 1/2 of an EV's life paying off the "CO2 debt"), and it generates all sorts of pollution in the process.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Because they are two completely different things. One is the environmental cost of manufacture, and one is the environmental cost of usage. Electric and ICE vehicles both have both of these costs. They are all different. If you want to compare things, you need to actually look at all four numbers, not take two unrelated numbers and comparing them for dishonest reasons.
    - ppf 5y ago
      I'm aware of those numbers, and they are still both an environmental cost, regardless of how they happen. EVs swap high environmental running costs for high environmental manufacturing costs, and then we in developed countries externalise those costs by sourcing most of the component parts from other countries, and tell ourselves that we have done something great for the world. Edit: It takes 25MWh to manufacture just the battery pack for a Tesla, or about 18,000Kg CO2 (assuming a 0.6Kg/kWh CO2 ratio for the Chinese power grid, which is a very optimistic number). Assuming the power grid where the EV will be used is 100% sustainable (which is very very far from the truth), given that the CO2 output for gas/petrol is 0.3kg / kWh or 2.3kg / liter, and assuming an average of 35 mpg or 7.7 miles per liter, as well as adding a factor of 1.5 to account for refining, storage, and transport losses (which I think is very generous) you would have to drive your new Tesla for around 40,000 miles on 100% renewable power before you've paid off the increased CO2 debt of its manufacture over an ICE. That mileage, by the way, is the number of miles the petrol-engined car would have to drive to produce the 18,000kg CO2 that it took to manufacture the EV battery pack. I am also assuming that the manufacturing cost of the rest of the EV is comparable to an entire ICE car, which I think is fair, as EVs generally contain a lot more electronics (which are very energy-intensive to manufacture), as well as at least one electric motor. An ICE is basically a lump of metal, which has a surprisingly low relative cost of manufacture. The UK has a relatively "green" power grid, for a developed country, and even here, the difference in CO2 output between the grid and an ICE is so small, you would basically never break even in overall CO2 emissions between an ICE and an EV. For reference, the calculated CO2 output of the UK grid is 0.23kg/kWh. Also, just for fun, the embodied energy of a 1960's Fiat 500 (assuming its entire 500kg weight is made of steel, which is probably a good enough approximation) is 3MWh, or three laptops. So what is more sustainable? Claiming that I am making an "dishonest comparison" just ignores the issues with the "green maths" of EVs.
rocqua 5y ago
At least you managed to hide your personal dislike to the authors response in your message...
- ppf 5y ago
  I dislike being told what to do, when their assertions make no sense to my life choices. Especially when most of the arguments boil down to "most of the environmental benefits are not going to happen yet, but soon!". My personal choices (mostly, keep my house a bit colder, don't buy new electronics, and cycle to work as much as possible) probably do more good, and right now, than buying an EV ever will. I also don't need to get my thrills out of driving a nice car. If we need to save the planet from CO2-induced death, then that is an absurd luxury that has no place.

by ppf 5y ago

user-the-name 5y ago

> Exporting your CO2 emissions to other countries (in the form of battery manufacture) This does not make sense. Battery manufacture is no way equivalent to ICE emissions.

ppf 5y ago
>Battery manufacture is no way equivalent to ICE emissions. How is it not? It takes a huge amount of energy to manufacture a battery pack (you spend about the first 1/3rd to 1/2 of an EV's life paying off the "CO2 debt"), and it generates all sorts of pollution in the process.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Because they are two completely different things. One is the environmental cost of manufacture, and one is the environmental cost of usage. Electric and ICE vehicles both have both of these costs. They are all different. If you want to compare things, you need to actually look at all four numbers, not take two unrelated numbers and comparing them for dishonest reasons.
  - ppf 5y ago
    I'm aware of those numbers, and they are still both an environmental cost, regardless of how they happen. EVs swap high environmental running costs for high environmental manufacturing costs, and then we in developed countries externalise those costs by sourcing most of the component parts from other countries, and tell ourselves that we have done something great for the world. Edit: It takes 25MWh to manufacture just the battery pack for a Tesla, or about 18,000Kg CO2 (assuming a 0.6Kg/kWh CO2 ratio for the Chinese power grid, which is a very optimistic number). Assuming the power grid where the EV will be used is 100% sustainable (which is very very far from the truth), given that the CO2 output for gas/petrol is 0.3kg / kWh or 2.3kg / liter, and assuming an average of 35 mpg or 7.7 miles per liter, as well as adding a factor of 1.5 to account for refining, storage, and transport losses (which I think is very generous) you would have to drive your new Tesla for around 40,000 miles on 100% renewable power before you've paid off the increased CO2 debt of its manufacture over an ICE. That mileage, by the way, is the number of miles the petrol-engined car would have to drive to produce the 18,000kg CO2 that it took to manufacture the EV battery pack. I am also assuming that the manufacturing cost of the rest of the EV is comparable to an entire ICE car, which I think is fair, as EVs generally contain a lot more electronics (which are very energy-intensive to manufacture), as well as at least one electric motor. An ICE is basically a lump of metal, which has a surprisingly low relative cost of manufacture. The UK has a relatively "green" power grid, for a developed country, and even here, the difference in CO2 output between the grid and an ICE is so small, you would basically never break even in overall CO2 emissions between an ICE and an EV. For reference, the calculated CO2 output of the UK grid is 0.23kg/kWh. Also, just for fun, the embodied energy of a 1960's Fiat 500 (assuming its entire 500kg weight is made of steel, which is probably a good enough approximation) is 3MWh, or three laptops. So what is more sustainable? Claiming that I am making an "dishonest comparison" just ignores the issues with the "green maths" of EVs.

rocqua 5y ago

At least you managed to hide your personal dislike to the authors response in your message...

ppf 5y ago
I dislike being told what to do, when their assertions make no sense to my life choices. Especially when most of the arguments boil down to "most of the environmental benefits are not going to happen yet, but soon!". My personal choices (mostly, keep my house a bit colder, don't buy new electronics, and cycle to work as much as possible) probably do more good, and right now, than buying an EV ever will. I also don't need to get my thrills out of driving a nice car. If we need to save the planet from CO2-induced death, then that is an absurd luxury that has no place.