this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
209 points (94.8% liked)
Futurology
3007 readers
111 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wonder how many will be left buying new internal combustion engine cars in 2030?
charging an ev with electricity produced through a fossil fuel plant is just a gas car with extra steps. also the price tag of 40k$ isn't really enticing, especially when the car isn't eco-friendly.
Is not and you know it. Stop
proof ? no, i dont know it
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.
i wouldnt argue. A solar plant would make all the sense. Also nuclear is finite, might as well skip it (fission, not fusion)
ofc. i dont plan on convincing u either. people with a reasonable mind would judge my opinion based on scientific facts, not by sentiment. sure a Tesla is cooler when u can drive 40km for 1$, while a 30mpg gasoline car would cost three times as much to cover the same distance. But piggybacking on cheap utility electricity isnt a valid reason to act like u r preserving the environement. u bought an Ev because it were cheaper to run, albeit the higher costs to be paid upfront
Sorry bud. I bought a used Leaf for about $11k a good 5-6 years ago. I'm poor as shit.
sorry i was talking about Tesla. no offense but also a leaf with a 24kwh isnt enough for battery, and charging at 0.5$/kwh and beyond isnt viable really. maybe u should have studied the running costs in ur location, including the electrical utility prices etc..(40km for 1$ thats with 0.13$/kwh in the us, 90km with 21kwh in a Tesla(222wh/km), so prices arent the same everywhere)
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 $200 on my electric bill, about what I spent on gas on my other vehicle, and it just wasn't even close to that. Well, getting closer these days, but the cost of electricity has gone up a bit. Still, financially, a great deal.
i thought running a leaf was costing u money. happy for u really if it helped u commute. a Tesla can live with chargers stationed each 400km, but a leaf wont make it. it requires a charging station each 100km. cool for commutes, but how about trips ? (cool, u already are aware of it) so hopefully more charging stations become built to support the leaf. for places where gasoline costs about 4$/galon and beyond, evs becomes more suitable i agree. where i live we have 3$/gal for gasoline, 2.4$/gal for diesel. probably prices are double this in the us or europe
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/
i quote u a Tesla owner: https://lemmy.world/comment/3467231
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?
Don't make claims if you're not even going to take the 15 seconds to do a search to verify.
what should i be researching ?
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.
i am not doubting the calculations, but see ? Evs only save 30% on emissions, what about the rest of 66% ? the purpose of EVs is to save the environment thou, right ? if Evs were powered by a solar plant, that would be a cool 0% of emissions. and that would be really nice. Also u dont want to depend on countries like russia for fossil fuel, be it gas or coal, or have to invade african countries for their uranium. instead solar is a more sustainable form of energy
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.
now we agree, but its a step in the right direction. just people should stop pretending they are saving the environment when buying Evs, thats just hypocrite. electric trains powered by solar should also subtitute airplanes, and electric buses are also less polluting..
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2833-the-environmental-footprint-of-electric-versus-fossil-cars#:~:text=So%20on%20the%20basis%20of,phases%20of%20a%20life%20cycle.
Can just Google it. Not hard
Evs save only 30% on emissions compared to a gas car. but ok 👍
Where energy is produced isn’t the same problem as emissions by vehicles. EVs aren’t meant to address emissions of power production, they’re meant to reduce demand for fossil fuels to aide in shifting to carbon neutral alternatives.
$40k for a new car is on par for their ICE offerings, especially something like a 4Runner
that way i ll keep rocking my 10k$ mk6 diesel running without dpf or adblue from the other side of the planet, until a carbon neutral alternative is figured out
This is your "scientific approach"? You don't adopt something new because it costs more than something that is already old? Well, good thing that in 10 years there will be plenty of cheap EVs. Using the tech of today, which you claim is not figured out now.