• cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    While they don’t address it directly, they do provide a route to address it. The issue is a lot of governments are pushing electric cars, and washing their hands of the rest.

    There are 3 issues with electric cars.

    • They are cars - Obvious to most here, but better public transport can vastly improve the situation, regardless of how the car is powered.

    • Batteries - Electric car batteries are far from perfect. Their range is reduced and they are heavier. There is also the issue of lithium, and/or other chemicals used in the batteries.

    • Power source - An electric car is only as clean as its energy supply. Powering it from a coal power station is far worse than using renewables.

    Counter to these however.

    • Cars will still be needed, to some extent. Electric are the least worst option we have NOW. We no longer have time to wait for a better option, or find a perfect solution.

    • Lithium can be recycled; we currently don’t, due to the small amounts, but this will change as economics adjust . Also, we are not actually that short of it, it’s just not be economically valuable enough to mine on a larger scale. Range can be adjusted as tech improves. We can also change how we operate. E.g. Combining out of town parking and charging with public transport options is an excellent way to get people using public transport on a large scale again, in an organic manner.

    • Power wise, it’s easy to shift an electric car from fossil fuel to renewables. It’s very difficult to shift an ICE car. This is also something we should be doing far more anyhow (but no-one seems to be interested in improving the grid!). On a side note, even accounting for various losses. The sheer efficiency factor of a power station means it’s still better to burn oil to run an electric car, than to run the car directly on the oil.

    Don’t get me wrong, the fixation on electric cars is dangerous, but they are still required as part of the solution. We just need to actually work on that solution. While the right, in politics, has a tendency to “circle the wagons” which causes a significant number of problems. The left has a tendency towards “circular firing squads”. We should all be careful not to help kill ideas and projects that pull in vaguely the right direction, even if it’s not exactly what we want.

    • Solivine@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My main problems with EVs is that they don’t reduce car dependency and the upfront manufacturing environmental cost of making them do not make them more eco friendly across their lifespan (especially with the trend of bigger and heavier cars). Car manufacturers are just jumping on the bandwagon to keep cars relevant in the mind of the consumer and clean their image of more obvious pollutants such as gas and oil.

      Electric cars will just perpetuate all the other problems with cars, while tricking consumer into thinking they’re making an environmentally sound choice and clean their conscience. There was still a giant environmental cost to making them, children still mined lithium for them, tyre rubber will still fill the lungs of people, etc etc.

      • Staccato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        EVs start their life with a higher environmental burden than ICE vehicles, but the math comes out so that the burden becomes lower after between 15k-20k miles.

        By the end of life of an EV, they are more eco friendly than an ICE vehicle of similar build.

        • Solivine@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          If that’s true then I’ve been fed some misinformation, could you provide a link/source verifying this?

          • Tnaeriv@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I found this article by the European Environment Agency. There’s also the Green NCAP website where you can check the environmental impact of different vehicles over their entire lifetime.

        • drewdarko@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also, “Environmental burden” and “eco friendly” are generic buzzwords used to lump other environmental issues like micro plastics or habitat destruction in with the reduction of green house gases.

          I wonder how the math would work out when it is strictly about reduction of greenhouse gases and factors unrelated to our dependency on fossil fuels are not skewing the results.

          • Staccato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Good point. I was referring to analyses I read that were calculating the carbon footprint specifically. Apologies for using vague language.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The number of miles varies a lot depending on the source of electricity but it goes up to 50k if it’s from burning coal IIRC

          • Staccato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which, over the lifetime of the car, is still a win environmentally. Modern cars are estimated to last for 200k miles, and electric vehicles are believed capable of enduring for 300k miles (although most models are too new to really prove that with data).

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        As far as I was aware, the environmental impact is still considerably less than a ICE car, even if powered from dirty power. The impacts are different, making a simple comparison difficult, but generally EV win out.

        I’m not saying electric cars are perfect, far from it. However, the change is pushing in the right direction. Think of it as a 2 front battle. Public transport Vs car, and EV vs ICE cars. Your arguments have very little bearing on the public Vs private transport argument, but heavily affect the EV Vs ICE argument.

        I’d strongly prefer cities with public transport so good that there is little need for cars etc. However, I would also rather have a city with EV cars over ICE cars. The change over from ICE to EV will also help change habits. That is a perfect time to push public transport into the mix.

        Picking a fight with EV is just going to leave both groups bloody. Big oil etc will egg it on, while laughing all the way to the bank.

        • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean it makes sense at a first principles level.

          An ice car connected to a transmission has a lot of losses, additionally, the engine is constantly in and out of various power and efficiency ranges.

          Even if you are just hooked up to a generator somewhere else, the generator can run at peak efficiency consistently to charge the battery instead of constantly varying.

          You could translate it to any power source. A large wind turbine is going to do better than a small one on top of the car.

      • drewdarko@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lithium isn’t mined it is gathered by pumping water into salt flats so the lithium rises to the surface and it isn’t done by children. You’re repeating misinformation.

        There is an environmental cost for absolutely anything we make. Do you suggest we stop making anything and everything?

        Electric cars are the more environmentally sound choice. They are a required first step to ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Without them we cannot end our dependency.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        do not make them more eco friendly across their lifespan

        I upvoted you despite this inaccuracy.

        The problem with electric cars is that they’re only a marginal improvement over fossil-fuel cars (note: not the same as “ICE”)*, when, as you said, what we need are the transformative gains from ending car-dependency. (I.e., changing the zoning code to encourage walkable density instead of prohibiting it and ending subsidies on car infrastructure.)

        (* IMO internal combustion is not the right distinction to make, since things like biodiesel and gasoline synthesized from CO2+H20+electricity could be carbon-neutral too.)

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        No matter how you power it, bringing 6000lbs of steel with you to go anywhere or do anything is unsustainable.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not even just that! Bringing a thing that takes a 10’x20’ space to store with you everywhere is unsustainable.

          Even a 2000lb Mazda Miata takes up the same number of parking spaces – one – as a Ford Excursion, which means it contributes just as much to parking lots destroying walkability as the big SUV does. It also contributes just as much to the “need” to widen roads, since you can only have one car per lane and the longitudinal space is dominated by safe following distance, not the length of the vehicle itself.

          The bottom line is that all cars ruin cities, even the small ones. (And before somebody chimes in with “but whatabout Kei cars/compact parking spaces,” I’ll note that Japan doesn’t even let you buy any car – including a Kei car – without proof that you have an off-street parking space to store it in, and such spaces are far and few in between in cities since Japan’s zoning code is relatively sane. In other words, the total number of cars is substantially limited and that’s the saving grace, not the Kei cars themelves.)

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are cars - Obvious to most here, but better public transport can vastly improve the situation, regardless of how the car is powered.

      Zoning for walkability is vastly more important even than better public transport, as is infrastructure for biking. The “EVs” we should really be talking about are e-bikes.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The big thing is that you need to plan for end to end integration.

        Walking > Bikes > E bikes > Trains > Busses > EV vehicles > ICE vehicles.

        Most will likely be needed (e.g. someone needs to stock the inner city supermarkets, and you can’t do that by bus), but we should be optimising for that whole chain.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          First of all, I broadly agree with you. The following is meant to be a “yes, and,” not a “no, but.”

          (e.g. someone needs to stock the inner city supermarkets, and you can’t do that by bus)

          That statement has a car-centric assumption built in: in a properly-designed city, grocery shopping isn’t necessarily done in “supermarkets” to begin with. Smaller stores, in turn, could be restocked via smaller vehicles.

          • cynar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You will still need shops, and they will still need stocking up. That means delivery access. Larger delivery vehicles are a lot more efficient, and so less are needed. You likely will always want a controlled way to get transit sized vans in and out. I would rather that was planned in, in a controlled manner, rather than left to big business, or bodge jobs. E.g. by back delivery roads. Underground would be perfect, but generally isn’t viable.

            You also need access for construction and maintenance.

            Unfortunately, these requirements also make a vehicle centric model easy for cities, and so, by extension, car centric. Many places default to this. Finding a viable solution requires getting a balance (enough road access to keep places supplied, but good enough support and incentives to keep unnecessary cars out).

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The idea that pedestrianized streets are always blocked off to literally everything (including emergency vehicles, construction vehicles, overnight deliveries, etc.) is a common misconception – or strawman argument – but it just isn’t true. Lowering or removing a bollard for access by vehicles with a good reason to be there is an obvious no-brainer.

              • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, and importantly, a lot of these deliveries can be done at night, when there are far fewer pedestrians around. And long-term, I bet things like local freight rail or cargo trams could be used to deliver to larger, higher throughput stores:

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sir, you’re on “fuckcars”, get your measured reasonable response out of here. All that people want to hear is “cars bad”.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some of us are actually interested in the practicalities of reducing both car use, and the damage cars do.