You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
12 points

Motor emissions could drop by 100% if we banned ICE vehicles already.

permalink
report
reply
22 points

Yeah but short term that would be worse for the environment, interestingly enough:

“Almost 4 tonnes of CO2 are released during the production process of a single electric car and, in order to break even, the vehicle must be used for at least 8 years to offset the initial emissions by 0.5 tonnes of prevented emissions annually.”

https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-battery-production/

Do also note that estimated life cycle CO2 for BEVs are lower but not significantly so than ICE vehicles. The numbers do however improve significantly as we move to a more carbon neutral energy grid. Without construction improvements that reduce emissions the cap is at around 1/3 the total pollution for a BEV vs ICE. IF the electricity is produced and delivered without any CO2 costs.

The only real, long term, solution is to rethink transportation. Or some groundbreaking new battery tech.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

As others have pointed out, your linked article doesn’t have any scientific weight and is hardly a source of truth. But even if it is correct, it is still better to move pollution outside of cities. There are no reasons to continue using ICE vehicles.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points
*

I want to point out that the author of the article you are citing is not an environmental scientist or a climate change expert, but an economist with an interest in the field. The article is not a peer reviewed piece of work, it is more or less equivalent to a blog piece with citations. She is not citing peer reviewed research as far as I can tell, but instead a series of linked ‘studies’ (including drafts and organizational white papers) of questionable scientific value.

After reviewing, I would not be inclined to put much if any stock in her analysis.

Here is a peer reviewed article for nature, that finds BEVs are actually much , much lower in CO2 production even during pre use than ICE vehicles.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y#Fig3

permalink
report
parent
reply
-15 points

Thank you for your review. I don’t really agree with your criticism though since your main arguments against the linked article can easily be abused to discredit anything that hasn’t been studied in the exact form discussed. We will never have scientific papers on every possible dimension and perspective on a problem and as such understanding will need to be built by engaged members of society connecting dots in good faith and debate about it as you and I do now. There is nothing inherently bad about a blog with citations.

I also notice how what you link is not at all equivalent. They add in the infrastructure needed to supply vehicles with the fuel they consume, which is of course a valid addition. That addition then offsets the difference in production by adding on disproportionately more to ICE vehicles. What we then end up in is that we still see that building BEVs is still not going to solve our crisis. But they are for sure better than ICE, and this isn’t something I nor the article disputes. My claim that it would be worse for the environment short term also holds true because the gain for the environment only comes after the production cost increases has been offset and, as the paper you linked added, gasoline infrastructure can be decommissioned.

The paper you linked also doesn’t look into Lithium nor Kobalt which are problematic to say the least, if not from a CO2 perspective. Nor does it say anything about the feasibility of an even more rapid phase out (because a phase out is happening right now, and rather rapidly at that, we can’t go much faster without other significant risks).

In summary, the article and the linked paper are not in conflict, from my reading.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

If Americans wouldn’t be so allergic to public transport, it’d be way easier to move away from the whole concept of personal vehicles (except bikes and scooters of course).

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Most of those who appear to be for it only are for it for the ability to shovel money to various interests, and don’t care about useful transit. Amtrak has run study after study, instead of taking the first and building whatever. NYC builds massive stations and so can’t afford more than short new subway sections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Yeah, the solution is not taking the car for every trip, and having car sharing available so you don’t need to manufacture so many cars.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

And entire world’s economy would drop by 100%. World is not ready to transition into EVs, and most likely will never be. In my opinion what Toyota is doing is the right approach. Higher quality ICE engine which can directly burn hydrogen. They already have the engine, just need to push it hard enough so R&D pays off. Hydrogen is expensive and hard to make (in terms of efficiency), but it’s infinitely more scalable than batteries, and cleaner too. But with higher popularity price will drop.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It also has the disadvantage of being harder to fill and harder to contain (not dangerous, exactly, but hydrogen tanks generally leak.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

All of that can be fixed. But one thing that can’t be done is improve energy density of Lithium batteries. Simply put they are too heavy for the amount energy they store, have issues in cold weather, prone to mechanical failures, etc. Even if high pressure tanks are more expensive, we could start with lower pressure ones and work our way up as technology improves. Simply put it scales better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Latest figures are that green hydrogen accounts for 0.04 percent of total hydrogen production.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Because there’s no demand for it. Currently production is very dirty but the engine itself is green as it gets. As the demand shoots up government can and probably will stimulate green production of hyrdogen. Point is, once you have hydrogen car there’s no upgrade path needed anymore. Initial ICE engines were of poor efficiency but it got better. But we have to pick technology which can scale with demand. Batteries are simply not it, especially when it comes to big transporters like boats and trains. You can’t use batteries on those. Even trucks are problematic as battery weight significantly reduces amount of cargo.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

ICE is here too stay. It’s pure gasoline usage that will probably fall out of fashion. Toyota is experiencing with ammonia based engines that cut down on emissions almost entirely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The only benefit of ICE over BEV is quick refueling, and that only matters if you’re roadtripping.

The solution is fast-charging BEVs. Edmunds just released a roundup of EV charging times, and showed that with some Hyundais/Kias, you can get 100 miles of range juiced up in 7-8 minutes. Obviously, yes, that’s still slower than dumping some dead dinos in your gashole and taking off, but it’s still pretty quick.

With further technological refinements over time and infrastructure built to give you something to do during 15-20 minute charges, road trips will be perfectly feasible without ICE and will actually probably be more pleasant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Except fast charging quickly degrades the battery. For people without home charging access, this is the key issue. In reality, BEVs won’t catch on. Between the cost, weight, and other problems of the battery, it is a doomed idea and a repeat of the early 20th century. The future of transportation will involve a chemical fuel, whether it’s ICE or fuel cell powered or whatever. It has to mirror the functionality of existing cars completely, or it won’t work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I’m not buying an EV.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

There is no large well of ammonia that we can use for fuel. Transforming green electricity into a liquid fuel, whether hydrogen, ammonia or something else invariably results in large efficiency losses compared to battery technology.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

Batteries are not a sustainable solution. For vehicles the size of SUVs, they are a disaster. In reality, the vast majority of transportation will be powered by some kind of chemical fuel. If you must have electrified vehicles, then you should look at trams, trolleybuses, light rail, etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I doubt battery production is easier than creating ammonia fuel. There’s tons of chemical manufacturers available domestically.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Let me guess, you live in a city and forget that not everyone lives in a city?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Have you been to cities in North America? Full of massive trucks and SUVs for no good reason. Look up marketing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

I used to live in the middle of nowhere and walk 1 hour to the nearest shop. But an EV or walk. No excuses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Damn, that’s crazy that you have the time to so seriously inconvenience yourself so you can feel good about this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Do you want walking 50km/ 30 mi to school. How about half that to get any food.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s a good one! I approve!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

We would also have to get rid of tires to do that, tires pollute a lot. And roads too, heavier vehicles wear out roads faster, and asphalt requires petroleum products to produce.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Tyres don’t pollute air that much and their particles are big enough for simple filters. Also many roads are made out of concrete instead of asphalt these days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They pollute more than you think, and using concrete is very rare in certain parts of the world. Outside of elevated roads I’ve never seen in used in my area or any part of the northern US.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 272K

    Comments