Everyone knows that electric vehicles are supposed to be better for the planet than gas cars. That’s the driving reason behind a global effort to transition toward batteries.
But what about the harms caused by mining for battery minerals? And coal-fired power plants for the electricity to charge the cars? And battery waste? Is it really true that EVs are better?
The answer is yes. But Americans are growing less convinced.
The net benefits of EVs have been frequently fact-checked, including by NPR. "No technology is perfect, but the electric vehicles are going to offer a significant benefit as compared to the internal combustion engine vehicles," Jessika Trancik, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told NPR this spring.
It’s important to ask these questions about EVs’ hidden costs, Trancik says. But they have been answered “exhaustively” — her word — and a widerange of organizations have confirmed that EVs still beat gas.
Propaganda works.
There should be penalties for spreading such lies.
Put them in a sealed room with a gas engine running and you’ll see how fast they realize that they’re cleaner
Isn’t the whole point that the gas engine equivalent is just in somebody else’s room though?
In any case, I’ll take whatever partial climate wins we can get.
Even if we assume all the electricity is coming from carbon sources (there’s no need for any of it to be carbon sources) it’s still more efficient because power plants are way better at turning that chemical energy into electricity. Even with the losses in the lines, charging, and in your motors, electric cars are still significantly more efficient on a mile per kg CO2 basis than gas cars. Throw some solar panels on your roof and they become essentially carbonless.
It’s really easy to understand why too. You completely waste most of the heat energy you produce in IC engines. They’re incredibly inefficient and always will be.
Yeah, what is it, 70% energy lost to heat in an ICE?
Solar, wind, and nuclear energy: are we a joke to you?
Fair, but the first rebuttal is going to be “go into a sealed room with a coal fire burning”
I’d happily hang out in a sealed room with a nuclear reactor.
… how is that an argument?
The argument is that all you’re doing is moving the carbon emissions from the car directly in your vicinity to the coal-fired power plant a long distance away. Move that same coal-fired power plant into the sealed room, and suddenly it’s no longer far away, and the “unclean” nature of the electric car, so the thought process goes, becomes obvious.
That’s the thought process if you just stop thinking when you get to a point that reaffirms one’s biases. If you continue down that train of thought you’d realize it’s a lot easier to regulate and monitor the emissions of a coal power plant than it is every single car on the road. Plus you don’t need to use coal to make electricity.
Genuine question - are EVs better for the environment if the main source of electricity of my country is coal based? Most of the coal plants are pretty old too…
Yes. That’s the entire point here. The answer is yes.
Yes, whether your electric plant is coal, natural gas, or honestly even if it was diesel. Larger engines are more efficient than smaller ones. It’s been a long time since I broke down the math over 10 years so my information is probably wildly out of date but even 10 years ago when you broke down the math charging an EV from a fossil fuel plant of any kind was still ultimately more efficient than a gas car in the long term.
Couple that with the ability of many EV now to also act as a battery for your house and that just goes wildly into the EVs favor if you utilize that for peak demand offset. Which many people could do easily even if it meant not having their battery fully charged in the morning when they go to leave for work because let’s face it very few people drive more than 60 miles full round trip in a day so even with their battery at say half they would have more than enough for their whole day plus extra.
The “break even” point is still somewhere around 150k miles for big batteries (above 75 kWh). And while there are many EVs that have 200k on their first battery, that isn’t necessarily the status quo for most of them. A simple lump of Aluminum or Cast Iron takes a lot less energy to make and can even be produced completely renewable If you factor in synthetic fuels, things look even more grey - especially with algae, there can be huge benefits growing algae in sea water (see the Arctic Algal Boom and the connected pytho plankton growth). BEVs are not “THE” answer, they are one answer to specific questions.
Not only that, the issus (environmental, child labour, etc) with rare earth elements are still not solved and the environmental damages through lithium mining are not something to just sweep under the rug.
So something a swappable and universal battery design would solve that would allow lithium to be phased out by sodium batteries and would allow the usage of only the amount of batteries you’d actually need. So why are you against that as well? Or just BEVs in general?
Who said i’m against that? But with that argument, phasing out fossile fuels would solve a lot more issues than a few EVs.
Or maybe 13,500 miles. But what’s a few zeros between friends?
Argonne assumes the batteries are produced with renewables AND they assume EVs are going to be charged over the day, when most of the renewable energy is “present”. Most BEVs are charged over night, where only Hydro or Geothermal makes power. Meaning, the Co2 footprint grows exponentially, because at night most of the power is made with fossile fuels - a kWh easily can have a rucksack of over 700 gr/kWh of Co2. But hey, what’s a few assumptions here or there in favour of either side, huh? Oh and go talk to China about them producing the batteries “environment friendly”. Just because something uses less Co2 doesn’t mean it’s cleaner. A few ppm more Co2 in the Atmosphere is bad for the Climate, sure, but a few ppm more Mercury in natural habitats, rivers and lakes? Pff, who cares!
A recent study from the Association of German Engineers did factor in that most EVs are charged over night - even after 130k Miles (~ 200k km), a Golf TDI has roughly a 33 Ton Co2 rucksack, where an EV produced with renewables (ID.3) had 36 Tons.
“Most BEVs are charged over night, where only Hydro or Geothermal makes power”
Maybe in Iceland; anywhere with wind and nuclear power, this really is not the case.
And in most areas, how much share have nuclear and wind? Somewhere around 30-40% combined on average
About 30% in Europe/US; half that in China.
Electricity consumption drops sharply during the night - when wind power typically peaks. There are power companies that offer substantially cheaper rates at night for charging EVs for this very reason.
Do we actually have hard data to determine if coal power delivering your electricity is indeed cleaner than what an ICE emits?
It’s pretty simple really if you look at commuter traffic. Each stopped electric vehicle does nothing while stopped.
Aside from heating or cooling the occupants, that is.
Yeah, compare 500w heating to 30kw starts. But it does matter if you’re gonna be there eternally for 8 hours or something. Heating is inefficient when you’re not doing something else with the water before hand.
Somehow instead of having a GPS app tracking traffic to top off the batteries before you get there, I much rather have an app try to convince me to park my car, take a bus and try again tomorrow.
Yes you can get the emissions per equivalent kilowatt hour of both. Especially since there are many electric generators that are just using a car engine. And it’s a known fact that at least in terms of energy generation larger motors a better conversion rate of fuel to electricity and power plant Motors are quite a bit larger than most cars. Unfortunately I only really have my phone available to me at the moment and I’m a little busy so I don’t have time for much more than these quick replies but over the next couple days if I get a moment I will come reply to this again after finding the actual figures if you haven’t already found them yourself which please do reply to this with them if you find them
Yes the MIT link covers coal. At worst it’s on par with gas cars. They get better as the energy source mix does but they aren’t worse than gas powered cars.
Public transportation is even better yet
And when we actually get that going I’ll stop making sure I always have a car available.
yay for privilege I guess but we can’t all do that
Can’t all use public transportation? I don’t know what you read up there, but I’m in favor of it, I just don’t think we’re ever going to do it. We’ll bring back corporate owned worker’s barracks with corporate scrip before we actually give ourselves good public transportation.
No. The other thing.
Ah okay.
For inner city folk yes.
The US used to have an incredibly comprehensive rail network, combined with street cars in every town. This “public transit is only for cities” nonsense is pro car propaganda.
I used to live outside a town of 3,000 people. Prior to the 1950s it had a trolley that would take you to the 15 miles to the nearest city, and from there you could catch a train to go pretty much anywhere.
Saw a rural bus system working perfectly fine in South America. If they can figure it out, so can we.
In Japan, taxes collected on the Tokyo metro (which is privately owned but heavily regulated) help subsidize a thousand little suburban and rural bus and rail lines. It’s not rocket science, even in the US a similar scheme is employed by the Post Office to ensure everyone’s mail costs the same to the consumer.
Even just taxes. I pay taxes. I’d like to breathe less shit from all the commuters and have all the people I depend on at their work. This aversion to taxes in the US is terminal unless we get rid of it.
You can still have public transit/trains on suburban areas. See Germany or the Netherlands.
Or Japan, or China, or South Korea, or Italy, or Argentina, or Lancaster PA, or parts of New Jersey even. Fuck man so many places have public transit.
How I’m imagining public transportation in Lancaster, PA:
I mean close but instead think a fleet of like 20 bus routes that spread out in every direction for miles and miles into suburbs and farmland. And the buses have real time GPS tracking.
But otherwise very similar.
Its not a “you can” problem. Its a “we don’t” problem. I cannot get to work on time (7am) using the only public transport we have (bus) in a county with a million people. Also would take about 1.5hrs longer than by car. to be 15m late (assuming the bus is on time) every day. puts it around 4 hours travel to/from work, so work takes up ~12 hours of your day.
The trip length is certainly an issue but bosses in the US need to be more on board their workers arriving when the bus system can reasonably get them there instead of demanding a ~25,000 dollar investment just to get to work.
It sucks that this is so commonly the case. I’ve had times when I’ve been able to commute by bus to work and it genuinely makes the trip so much more pleasant - even if it takes thirty minutes longer (as it did in my last job where I did it) the ability to be on my phone for the whole trip was so nice I’d go back in an instant if I could.
Japan beats everyone.
Because we Americans are easily swayed by propaganda, unfortunately.
I heard about this, although the positive news is it’s mostly people who weren’t in the market for an EV to begin with so it doesn’t really impact EV sales or anything. Still hate to see disinformation win, though.
I’m a bit sad to hear Congress is more or less outlawing Chinese cars here, though. Affordable EVs are far and few between and it really feels like the national security rational they’re giving thinly hides the real reason of preventing competition for US car makers, as if they even planned on making a decent EV.
Yeah, Congress blocking affordable Chinese EVs completely betrays their messaging about EVs. It is clear they don’t care about the planet, EVs are just another opportunity to transfer public funds to the donor class (billionaires)
IMO, I still think there’s not enough infrastructure to support charging EVs. Don’t get me wrong I’ve seen some. Just… Not a lot. Until charging is as prevalent as gas its just not worth it. Or if you have a house I guess.
In some areas I hear it’s good. But in my area there’s only 1 set of charging stations at a Wawa that I know of. And that Wawa is an hour drive away. Plus I’m at a rental complex that mows the lawns regularly and having a cable run from my house to the car is not allowed.
My current gas operated vehicle has about 160000 miles on it. I’m hopeful that my vehicle will last a long time. And then when my vehicle dies, I’ll look at the infrastructure again and see if it’s beneficial for me to switch to an EV. I’m going to continue to wait until it’s beneficial for me to buy a new car.
We’ll see how it goes.
Well, gas stations don’t really want electric because it would cut into their main source of revenue so I think I may have spotted the bottleneck.
The only way charging stations will become prevalent is if municipalities start setting them up. Either that or grocery stores. Though Answers with Joe made an interesting case for Buccees adopting charging stations as a method of generating revenue through increased tourism at their locations.
Gas stations actually make almost all of their money on things other than gas that people buy while they are at the gas station. It’s true that people wouldn’t come to existing gas stations nearly as much if they weren’t buying gas but they could make as much or more from users charging.
The real problem from their perspective is how infrequently users may need such especially if they charge at home and the cost of charging infra which is always in addition to gas not instead of
Because the conservative machine, despite the love of Elon’s right-wing antics, never stop talking about how bad EVs are. Funny, the only time they act like they care about the environment is when they talk about how bad the EV batteries are to manufacture. While they roll coal and drive gas-guzzling mall cruiser bro-dozers all over the place.
Give him a few years into a potential Trump victory, and he will make Tesla to manufacture petrol cars.
Its about 40% more power efficient per mile but theres a couple of other trade-offs, still better yeah.
I was always under the impression that the source of the electricity to charge electric vehicles matters greatly. Some areas use coal burning to generate power while others use hydroelectric.
While true, it’s way better better for a power source to be inefficient than all consumers using inefficient/dirty appliances.
Once the aging coal plant is decommissioned in favor of a new nuclear reactor in a state like Wyoming, anyone using stuff like electric water heaters, heatpumps or electric bikes/buses/cars/scooters is instantly using 100% renewable power.
Even in screwed up states like Texas, there is so much load on the grid (and the fact they cannot buy power from other states) means that cheap solar panels, battery storage and wind are way faster to put up than expensive methane/natural gas generators.
I don’t consider nuclear as renewable, but they do reduce CO2 production.
If you got the most ridiculous EV (the Hummer) and drove it primarily in West Virginia (86% coal generated electricity), it would have worse lifetime CO2 emissions than an ICE.
Literally any other combination, and it’s better.
And it would still be worlds better than the worst ICE cars, it would only be worse than average.
Definitely better to charge an EV with clean energy. But it’s probably better to charge an EV with dirty electricity than it is to keep using a combustion vehicle.
IIRC a gas vehicle is something like 20% thermally efficient, whereas a coal/oil power plant can be up to 60%. So even if my EV is charging off oil or coal, I’m getting 3x the energy per unit of emissions compared to a gas vehicle (though who knows how that translates to miles of range).
I want to see data. Coal emissions also aren’t the same as gasoline emissions. Mile for mile, calorie for calorie, do we know how efficient an EV battery needs to be if it was powered by coal electricity in order for it to match the same total emissions as an ICE? I’m all on board for electric, but I’m not gonna shell out double the cost for an EV that an ICE car would cost if the difference is negligible. I’d rather just not drive.
Not the case, they still get 100mpge + so they’re always better
It does matter in terms of how much less polluting it would be. Even in case of coal plant bonansa it reaches a point where it becomes less poluting than gasoline car . Alghtough much slower. Its also not realy important since renewables became so cheap that there is practicly no country that dosent have a fairly significant renewable share ( and by that i mean > 10 % ).
https://www.iso-ne.com/ Looking at my own region of New England, renewables are only at about 8% right now. And that includes burning wood, refuse, and landfill gas as renewable sources.
Also 24% nuclear and 3 hydro which somehow dosent count as renewables
They all suck in their own unique ways. Automotive tires are a leading source of microplastics so EVs aren’t exactly a darling angel, but getting to work has become a 500 billion a year industry in America and framed in such a way that people are debating which car is better for the environment when they’re all horrible compared to mass transit. Because capitalism thrives on frivolity and consumption. That’s the real crux
By insisting on perfect, you are preventing incremental change.
Incremental change would have been fine in the 1970s when the world should have instituted it, including incrementally reducing industry to absolute necessities like medical products, and individual developed world quality of life, to find homesotasis with our only habitat.
Now it’s smash the factories today, and accept the hundreds of millions dead breaking those poisonous supply chains, including possibly ourselves, for humanity to have any non-nightmarish future on a planet we terraformed to be hostile towards Human life for the next couple million yers.
But having absolutely failed to institute incremental change half a century ago despite warning, and absolutely failing to take drastic action now that we are just beginning to feel our irreversible fine work, our species clearly and resolutely chooses no future/nightmare susbsistance future, or at the very least there wouldn’t be a pop figure/pointless plastic crap factory left standing in the world. 🔥🤷♂️🔥
What I find the most ridiculous is what we’re doing: resolutely choosing death by actions, while still strangely preaching hope for a future. WuT a weird fucking species we were.
You can buy an EV and have a country invest in transit. These do not need to be exclusive things
Sure. Or I can drive my old car very little and be pissed my country subsidizes a clearly inferior solution just to save the car industry instead of subsidizing way more efficient and environmentally friendly mass transit.
Edit- I think we’re agreeing now that I look at your other comments but I’ll leave this.
Automotive tires are a leading source of microplastics so EVs aren’t exactly a darling angel
Could we not just make tires out of a different material?
Yes and no.
Yes it’s possible. No it’s not scalable or affordable.
Synthetic plastics (all plastics for the purposes of this conversation) are byproducts of the petroleum industry. They’re making gas out of oil and are left over with plastic precursors so those get made into something and everyone wins* because the materials are basically free.
Last I looked we were creeping up on two billion tires a year.
it’s not just capitalism, the US is a very spread out place compared to most other countries. if you want everyone to use mass transit you’re asking them to either 1) move into the city for similar commute times, or 2) spend an inordinate amount of time riding busses around the suburbs for the same distance commute. Neither are good solutions.
And also we have solved the “getting to work” debate with teleconferencing. why should we need cars or an even bigger mass transit system when most people can simply work from home?
Eh there are plenty of places that have less population density than the US but they do just fine with transit. It might be true that most US cities are poorly designed for transit, but the density isn’t a the reason.
if you want everyone to use mass transit
That’s the point, nobody wants to move people in the middle of nowhere to buses. Everyone wants these people to move to buses:
That’s like a half-full train’s worth of people if they single-seat, which they do, or 5-10 buses.
Imagine how cooler the place would be if that 16 lane road would be a 2 lane train track.
Someone has to see Not Just Bikes. Capitalism was the driver to the sub-urbanization process made after WW2 in the US, as a national economic policy to orient growth around building detached houses, private cars and suburban infrastructure (and secondary security considerations of reducing losses and damage in case of nuclear bombs in cities). The US was not a '‘very spread out’ place before WW2 (i.e. for the vast majority of its history), in fact cities like San Francisco were world leaders in mass transit, and trains were the axis of transportation of both people and goods (even existing suburbs were connected to trains, in whatever shape and size they come). The us cities spent and spend an enormous amount of money and debt to pay for all the road infrastructure, that even neoliberals say it’s not economically sustainable, and that money can also be better used paying for higher quality mass transit, not the tertiary thought they give it now (horrible buses that stay in traffic with the cars for the poor people that can not afford a car). Most people do not work remote all the time, even flexible / hybrid workers need to transport themselves some trips per week. Not to mention that full remote work may over time trickle to foreign countries that do the service cheaper, and the work remaining onshore is work that the owners need-want at least hybrid or on site workers.
The US was not a '‘very spread out’ place before WW2
no kidding, the population was also like a third of what it is now.
in fact cities like San Francisco were world leaders in mass transit, and trains were the axis of transportation of both people and goods (even existing suburbs were connected to trains, in whatever shape and size they come). The us cities spent and spend an enormous amount of money and debt to pay for all the road infrastructure,
yeah, mass transit within cities is a great idea and should be used as much as possible. I am not shitting on the general idea of mass transit. what I’m saying is, in the context of a practical daily commute, mass transit only works to a point, and a LOT of people live beyond that point.
Most people do not work remote all the time, even flexible / hybrid workers need to transport themselves some trips per week.
again, I’m not saying mass transit should never be used. what is the cost:benefit for the infrastructure to cover out to the suburbs? how much time is added to very long trips, and are people willing to deal with that?
A venn diagram of Trumpers and people who believe gas cars are cleaner is a circle
Over the longterm, and they also require a lot less maintenance because they don’t have to deal with mini-explosions from combustion generating excess heat and stress. The problem is in the battery, and the industry hasn’t even scratched the surface for solutions.
I see trucks carrying butane tanks all the time, where are the trucks carrying EV battery replacements? There aren’t because the industry wants to charge extra for fixed installation ones depending on capacity and charging capacity and there is absolutely no profit incentive that offsets other losses to standardize battery systems in a way they can be easily extensible or replaceable.
Where are the trucks carrying the replacement petrol tanks for ICE cars?
You can get them at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gas+tank
You aren’t making a point if you are trying to equate the distribution network for gas, which is so ubiquitous that there is no need for the sort of trucks that distribute butane tanks to EV batteries, which require specialized facilities for fast charging, which also deteriorates batteries faster, or otherwise take half a day of charging. EV battery swapping bans already exist for things like scooter rentals.
There are already standarized sizes, voltages, and ports using in autocaravans which could be connected in series ideally through BMS to provide the voltages EV cars would need and would even be simpler through already prepped trailer systems. Four 96V batteries (can go up to six) in series connected safely through Andersen connectors would be enough for a basic EV car, that’s less than 30kg LiFePO4 each, making it swappable on the spot, less dangerous than lithium, and open to a large market of providers.
I see trucks carrying butane tanks all the time
That’s not the equivalent to battery replacements but to the power grid, which of course is yet another win for EV (since clearly distributing the energy source for vehicles over the power grid is safer and more environmentally friendly than needing huge trucks to carry it).
(I’d say battery replacements are closest to motor replacements in gas cars in terms of costs and effort. What about the environmental impact? -> That’s why it’s so costly. To mitigate environmental impact.)
Battery replacements really are not difficult, I’d seriously recommend not imagining obstacles where there are not.
Without special installations, charging takes several hours instead of a quicker battery swap (which you could take with you as extra weight). DC chargers cannot even be installed at how home due to their requirement. Swappable batteries are possible and would make EV cars adaptable to new and different battery technology, they are just not designed that way.
Some, like the XBus, talked about allowing it, and it is perfectly possible, it just isn’t going to come out of traditional car manufacturers who had to be dragged to develop anything EV or manufacturers like Tesla who want to make range a subscription feature. Let’s not even go into EV range extension trailer systems, which would be as effortless as swapping trailers.
This is already the present; we have power tools that already swap batteries on the fly. The problem is more complex as you add batteries and charge, but not insurmountable. I see the first application in truck fleets.
The problem is that in those cases it is still a proprietary market.
So, just so you know, the average EV battery weighs 1000lbs, and some all the way up to 2000lbs in something like the EV hummer. (Unnecessary I know). The cost to have a battery in an EV replaced currently sits around $5000 to $15000 off of warranty. So there are definitely obstacles. Along with letting the general public fry themselves trying to hook up a 400v battery. You’re not dealing with AA batteries. Battery technology is far away from something able to swap out yourself with the ease you may be thinking of.
So, just so you know, you can purchase 96V batteries that weigh less than 30 kg and can be connected in series to provide well over 400V, and if you want more range you can install bigger ones. EV ones weight that much because of the range, which is less of a factor if they can be swapped. They are made up of cells which are individually far below 400v, and there are standardized Anderson connectors that can safely connect and disconnect +600V and are used all the time. The cost of a battery is a non-factor is you are just renting them like you are sort of expected to do with butane tanks. 50V is the limit where you usually begin receiving a shock at, but 400V is not really considered high voltage and can be easily handled with the proper connectors and failsafes, like not swapping with a load.
It’s better than letting the general public fry themselves trying to fuel their cars with an ignitable combustible.You are not dealing with rubbing alcohol. /wildscaremongering
Battery technology is something I’m constantly swapping out for myself with ease, but that’s because I don’t make my own mental blocks. So do owners who retrofit gas cars to EVs. My goal is to retrofit an older EV car so that I don’t have to pay around $5000 to $15000 of overpriced proprietary batteries. It is a long-term goal, but be happy, it is not one that could be shared because the only way to do so would be in a society open to it.
Please let me know how that goes for you and when I can purchase one that allows me to travel 500 kilometres in -25°C without disabling the vehicle mid trip in that mentioned temperature.
You mean for your highly specialized need that the majority of potential EV drivers currently turned off by the step costs don’t need? Sure, let me just make a note, since the solution is scalable, even working in the energy demand of a heater.
Ah yes, I am the only person on the planet who has a need to travel occasionally to a larger city during a normal winter. Got it!
The only valid criticisms of EV’s are:
-
They’re harder to extinguish than a gas car if they end up catching on fire.
-
They don’t really solve any of the major issues with car based infrastructure.
-
Tesla is a shit show because of that damn muskrat which pushes a lot of people away from EV’s in general.
They are heavier and accelerate faster than an equivalent ICE vehicle on the same frame, and so result in more pedestrian fatalities.
They are heavier and accelerate faster than an equivalent ICE vehicle on the same frame, and so result in more pedestrian fatalities.
I lump that in with part of the major problems of car based infrastructure but that’s still fair to point out.
All else being equal
They’re harder to extinguish than a gas car if they end up catching on fire.
Yeah that is gonna be a bigger problem than most people imagined.
My firefighter neighbour told me that the procedure now is just to let them burn, like they do with gasoline fires. They make sure it doesn’t spread, but they won’t try to extinguish it because it’d take 10-12 hours and thousands of gallons. By just letting it burn they’re done in an hour with a few hundred gallons.
To be fair, no consumer vehicles have 900 kWh batteries haha.
They don’t steal a lot of data too? Or this privacy nightmare affected gas car too?
It’s an issue in newer cars in general.
-
zombie engineer voice “traiiiiiins”
