5 ms·

I think 2) is a lot more complicated to the point statements like that are misleading. Take a look Graph of energy consumption of China which is about double t

I think 2) is a lot more complicated to the point statements like that are misleading. Take a look Graph of energy consumption of China which is about double the US: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china The energy consumption of the United States has flat lined: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption by de-indusrializing and having China produce all the energy (largely with coal!) to manufacture their goods instead of manufacturing it themselves. 1) Is a lot more complicated as well. A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery.

triceratops 5mo ago
> A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery Does it take into account the "massive energy cost" of manufacturing the ICE vehicle then?
- ahhhhnoooo 5mo ago
  Or the gasoline generation efficiency and transmission losses? Or the economic impacts of oil pollution? Getting oil from the ground to the pump isn't free either.
  - triceratops 5mo ago
    100 percent
  - leonidasrup 5mo ago
    The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths, used for permanent magnets in EV motors or in electric generators - wind turbines, is quite large. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389425033205 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#... Because of ecology, refining of U.S. mined rare earths was outsourced for a very long time to China. Outsourcing of ecological damage... https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-stops-china-bound-rare-earth-shipments-over-tariffs-2025-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-sto...
    - triceratops 5mo ago
      > The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths... is quite large There's obviously no ecological impact of mining and refining fossil fuel. The Deepwater Horizon actually reduced the amount of oil in the ocean. And unlike batteries, which are non-recyclable and always have been. It's common to throw the lead-acid battery from ICE vehicles into the nearest body of water, for example. It's definitely not the case that 99% of them are recycled today. Whereas recycling coal and oil is trivial and done all the time. /s
      - leonidasrup 5mo ago
        BP was fined billions for Deepwater Horizon because it affected US public. Most in US don't know that recycling of lead-acid batteries from ICE vehicles is outsourced to Africa. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/18/world/africa/lead-poisoning-car-battery.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/18/world/africa/... https://www.sustainable-recycling.org/reports/urgent-strategies-improve-lab-recycling/ https://www.sustainable-recycling.org/reports/urgent-strateg... "Although efforts to enforce regulations in the United States have ramped up and cleanup is underway at some sites, many lead-acid batteries from the United States are exported to the Global South, where companies continue to cause harmful public health disasters, and US automotive companies subsequently purchase the recycled lead." https://blog.ucs.org/jessica-dunn/how-recycling-is-done-matters-lessons-learned-from-the-lead-acid-battery/ https://blog.ucs.org/jessica-dunn/how-recycling-is-done-matt...
        triceratops 5mo ago
        > BP was fined billions for Deepwater Horizon because it affected US public. Great, all better in that case. And that's the only time oil and gas extraction and shipping ever caused environmental issues. It's totally clean the rest of the time. > Most in US don't know that recycling of lead-acid batteries from ICE vehicles is outsourced to Africa... and US automotive companies subsequently purchase the recycled lead So the batteries can be recycled.
        5mo ago
tzs 5mo ago
> One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption The US has not "maintained a low energy consumption". US total energy consumption is the second highest in the world, at 2x third (India), 3x fourth (Russia), 5x fifth (Japan), and 6x sixth (India). It was first until China overtook it in 2008. Here's a line graph from 1965-2024 of those 6 countries [1]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=line&country=CHN~USA~IND~RUS~JPN~BRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=l...
locallost 5mo ago
Others have touched on the other points, but I would like to point out also that China using 2x the energy with 4x the population speaks more in favour of China than the US. The US also uses fossil fuels to generate more than half of its electricity, and has done so for a long time. Germany for example transitioned from coal to renewables, whereas the US went from coal to natural gas. China is following a similar pattern as Germany. Overall there is no 100% clean source, there is something dirty in the chain everywhere. The main question for me is, is one thing an improvement over the other, is the improvement massive or modest? I think the improvement is massive and am hopeful for the future. This doesn't mean you can never improve, but I think this is already happening. For instance I saw an estimate from the Rocky Mountain Institute that they expect no further mining of lithium for batteries because it will be recycled. I obviously don't know if this is true, but even if lithium mining is environmentally unfriendly, if it's an improvement over what we have now, and if we can down the road get rid of that too, it's a positive development.
- coumbaya 5mo ago
  Germany didn't transition away from coal. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/all/yearly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/all/yearly
  - locallost 5mo ago
    It's less than half of what it was even 15 years ago. And it didn't replace that with natural gas like the US but with wind and solar.

triceratops 5mo ago

> A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery Does it take into account the "massive energy cost" of manufacturing the ICE vehicle then?

ahhhhnoooo 5mo ago
Or the gasoline generation efficiency and transmission losses? Or the economic impacts of oil pollution? Getting oil from the ground to the pump isn't free either.
- triceratops 5mo ago
  100 percent
- leonidasrup 5mo ago
  The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths, used for permanent magnets in EV motors or in electric generators - wind turbines, is quite large. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389425033205 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine#... Because of ecology, refining of U.S. mined rare earths was outsourced for a very long time to China. Outsourcing of ecological damage... https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-stops-china-bound-rare-earth-shipments-over-tariffs-2025-04-17/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/mp-materials-sto...
  - triceratops 5mo ago
    > The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths... is quite large There's obviously no ecological impact of mining and refining fossil fuel. The Deepwater Horizon actually reduced the amount of oil in the ocean. And unlike batteries, which are non-recyclable and always have been. It's common to throw the lead-acid battery from ICE vehicles into the nearest body of water, for example. It's definitely not the case that 99% of them are recycled today. Whereas recycling coal and oil is trivial and done all the time. /s
    - leonidasrup 5mo ago
      BP was fined billions for Deepwater Horizon because it affected US public. Most in US don't know that recycling of lead-acid batteries from ICE vehicles is outsourced to Africa. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/18/world/africa/lead-poisoning-car-battery.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/18/world/africa/... https://www.sustainable-recycling.org/reports/urgent-strategies-improve-lab-recycling/ https://www.sustainable-recycling.org/reports/urgent-strateg... "Although efforts to enforce regulations in the United States have ramped up and cleanup is underway at some sites, many lead-acid batteries from the United States are exported to the Global South, where companies continue to cause harmful public health disasters, and US automotive companies subsequently purchase the recycled lead." https://blog.ucs.org/jessica-dunn/how-recycling-is-done-matters-lessons-learned-from-the-lead-acid-battery/ https://blog.ucs.org/jessica-dunn/how-recycling-is-done-matt...
      - triceratops 5mo ago
        > BP was fined billions for Deepwater Horizon because it affected US public. Great, all better in that case. And that's the only time oil and gas extraction and shipping ever caused environmental issues. It's totally clean the rest of the time. > Most in US don't know that recycling of lead-acid batteries from ICE vehicles is outsourced to Africa... and US automotive companies subsequently purchase the recycled lead So the batteries can be recycled.
        5mo ago

tzs 5mo ago

> One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption The US has not "maintained a low energy consumption". US total energy consumption is the second highest in the world, at 2x third (India), 3x fourth (Russia), 5x fifth (Japan), and 6x sixth (India). It was first until China overtook it in 2008. Here's a line graph from 1965-2024 of those 6 countries [1]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=line&country=CHN~USA~IND~RUS~JPN~BRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=l...

locallost 5mo ago

Others have touched on the other points, but I would like to point out also that China using 2x the energy with 4x the population speaks more in favour of China than the US. The US also uses fossil fuels to generate more than half of its electricity, and has done so for a long time. Germany for example transitioned from coal to renewables, whereas the US went from coal to natural gas. China is following a similar pattern as Germany. Overall there is no 100% clean source, there is something dirty in the chain everywhere. The main question for me is, is one thing an improvement over the other, is the improvement massive or modest? I think the improvement is massive and am hopeful for the future. This doesn't mean you can never improve, but I think this is already happening. For instance I saw an estimate from the Rocky Mountain Institute that they expect no further mining of lithium for batteries because it will be recycled. I obviously don't know if this is true, but even if lithium mining is environmentally unfriendly, if it's an improvement over what we have now, and if we can down the road get rid of that too, it's a positive development.

coumbaya 5mo ago
Germany didn't transition away from coal. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/all/yearly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/all/yearly
- locallost 5mo ago
  It's less than half of what it was even 15 years ago. And it didn't replace that with natural gas like the US but with wind and solar.