511
Buying a new car is not better than keeping an old one
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
511 points (70.5% liked)
Memes
45196 readers
2629 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Electric cars don't solve every problem with private vehicle ownership but they're certainly a step in the right direction. Most EVs average an equivalent of more than 100mpg versus most ICEs, which are around 30-40. You can also power an EV with renewable resources. This isn't possible with ICEs (yes, I know you can power certain diesels with biofuel, but it's horribly inefficient).
"Buying a new car is worse than keeping an old one" is an incredibly situational phrase that has a million exceptions for so many people.
Also, what do you think happens to your car when you replace it with an electric car? Do most people just drive their old cars into the ocean when they upgrade?
Yeah, but this still holds a lot of water. More often than not people buy a new car to have a new car or even worse they buy one specificcally because they are misguidedly trying to lessen their carbon footprint.
This seems very hard to believe.
Try looking it up. That might help
Just because I wanted to be sure I am not being mistaken for some reason I just googled a couple different search terms for motivations to buy a new car.
None of the results is even close to confirming your ludicrous quote from above.
So again I am baffled by how confidently wrong you keep on posting here.
huge unsupported assumption with no basis but your anal tugging.
Not sure why you are having trouble finding support or what anal tugging even is, but looking at Americans at least. They get a new car. On average every 6 to 8 years. A decently maintained car will easily last 11-14 years. If you are finding a better explanation that genralizes than what I described to explain this gap I'd love to hear it
Most people buy used cars. So those cars are already 11 to 14 years old. Inform yourself.
After 8 years you're getting to the point where the average person is gong to start running into problems with their car, especially if they bought used. At that point a person may buy a new car for many reasons not "just because". But even in your example, it's a 3 year gap. That could be accounted for by someone commuting more than average or taking long trips and getting more wear and tear.
I can't even. Where are you getting that data? Unless the average person is driving a bmw they don't start running into any kind of serious issues until 11-14years. Anything sooner than that is typically easily fixed and much cheaper than buying a new car. I don't understand why people here don't realize there is a huge push by advertisers and American culture to buy new cars well before they are needed. People want new cars >> than they need new cars. I'm not fabricating that. Even in a recession yes this mentality remains strong. If that's important for you go for it I guess and yes of course buy electric or hybrid if you can. If you really want to make a carbon footprint dent though, hold off on buying a new car for a few years and with decent maintenance and minor repairs you will save yourself money and save the environment. Jesus
People don't run into issues for 11-14 years? You're assuming everyone is buying a brand new car. You're entire stance is destroyed by the simple concept of buying used cars.
I'm assuming nothing now other than this sub must be overrun by car salespeople. You all are insufferable. The average age of a used car being bought is 6years old, not 11-14. Also, no one is taking issue with the carbon footprint of buying used cars. That's not the point of this post. Buying and maintaining a used car is a wonderfully conservative practice. People aren't buying used electric cars (by and large). The point here the OP is making is that it's better from a carbon footprint standpoint to not trade up to an electric (typically new car) than to keep an existing ICE car at least until it nears end of life. That is a factually accurate statement that all of you car sales people apparently are upset about.
Guy, you are the only one in here trying to sell a new car.
Sure. Assume, insult, assume some more, then make more broad statements.
You've convinced me!
But by selling there old car more people can affort to buy a newer cars and fade out old cars wich overall is going to decrease carbon emissions because newer cars are on average more fuel efficent.
But yes Consuming less is still important
People aren't just buying new cars for fun in a recession. The point is people will need to buy a new car at some point. Either because they now need their own car or their old one isn't viable. At that point, choosing an electric car is a step in the right direction. That's why this post is stupid, it's acting like buying an electric car is just a frivolous purchase and not acknowledgeding that when someone needs to buy a car there is a choice to be made.
This is often repeated and very damaging misinformation. An EV powered purely by coal is significantly better for the environment than an ICE car over its lifetime. This is because coal fired power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines due to economies of scale, even after taking into account transmission losses.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/#:~:text=Even%20in%20the%20worst%20case,grams%2C%20the%20Reuters%20analysis%20showed.
Oh today I learned, TBH my information was probably out of date. But this is good to know. Definitely a step in the right direction even if more diversified public transportation options are better
It's more so outdated parroting than deliberate misinformation. A lot of the times I see people trying to back this one up, it's with Hawkins et al.'s Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles paper. A 2012 study that analyzes emissions based on manufacturing and energy production capabilities of the time doesn't hold up well over a decade later.
You would think that would be obvious, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Most coal has shifted to natural gas in the US.
Guess what else is incredibly horrible for the environment? Oil extraction. In fact, oil extraction is arguably worse for the environment.
Let's put this tired talking point to rest, forever. It's more than likely been invented by the special interest groups for oil.
My frustration comes from the fact that hybrids exist and are not used nearly as enough as they should (all cars should have been mandated as hybrids a decade ago) and this would reduce the downsides of electric car production.
I’m not defending ICEs here, I just think the overall environmental credentials of electric cars at this point in time isn’t as good as hybrids.
I fully expect this to change in the future but I’ve got entire fleets of vehicles which are less than 5 years old being replaced by electric and that makes no sense.
Also cars generally are just a terrible solution to mass transport. We already have the most environmentally friendly option known to man. Bicycles and trains.
Edit: for further information on hybrid vs electric see this analysis:
https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore
Yes, which is why I'm downvoting you.
I'm huge into going green, going mass transit, and everything else, however, most people cannot fit into one worldview, which is why this is more nuanced than your meme suggests.
As an example The Midwest in the states does not have mass transit, so they have to drive. So trains and bikes are out. Hybrid still uses gas, and for the vast majority of them they will be on the freeway, so a hybrid is basically the same as an ICE car anyway, so yeah, I'll push them into getting EVs if what they're doing is commuting. However than it gets more nuanced to "is this for roadtrips", because then maybe hybrid is better.
Which is why again I say it's a person-to-person basis. For you maybe a hybrid is the only option, but saying EVs are wrong for everyone is a very naive approach.
If you’re aiming for a huge change anyway (buying new EVs for everyone, installing chargers everywhere) why not consider the other one - adding more transit and bike lanes? It’s not an easy shift either way - but one involves various unknowns and unforeseen difficulties. The other has been put to use across the world already.
Because we have people spread out all across a massive landscape in the USA, it's not ever likely to be feasible to build public transport to reach everyone. No, we don't all live in the big cities and we never will.
Personal transportation will always be a necessity for Americans, except for those who choose to live inside large cities that do have public transport. EVs with Sodium ion batteries would vastly improve our emissions and eliminate the problem with sourcing Lithium batteries' minerals.
What do you mean “not ever likely to build public transport”? That is literally how the West was first settled, and the reason many of those towns exist. We already had train networks, and abandoned them only because of car trendiness.
I’ve read accounts from people who actually live in those small towns - even if they exist a long way from cities, they’re still generally walkable (because of the low traffic volume in the area). Any place where each individual home and store has been spread out such that literally every trip for any purpose necessitates private transport is just forcing its own worst-case scenario and would benefit from a redesign either way. As long as there’s any kind of civic center with a few stores, it becomes reasonably practical to at least have a bus route.
Haha, I've lived that life for about 80% of 4 decades already in several small towns and out in the woods far from town. Public transport is mostly non-existent, and people live all over the place where there is nothing but a narrow winding road with no sidewalks. It's generally only the city center where the buildings like courthouses and banks are located that are walkable in the average American small town. Basically there's no option but cars for these small towns.
When you go on about how they should all be built up into an urban paradise with sidewalks and buses and trains going everywhere, it overlooks the fact that we already don't keep up the infrastructure that we have well enough. There is no money to just rebuild everything into the version you imagine would be ideal.
That sounds like the most backward design even of a rural area. This is not a dichotomy between cities and towns complete with pedestrian bridges and electric crosswalks, it’s also about planning that amounts past random, long-distance scattering of destinations.
I’m trying to even understand how you claim those towns become unwalkable, since that’s not due to lack of development - it’s a matter of overdevelopment of roads with wide lanes. A small grid of old buildings with dirt between them is perfectly walkable. If someone built those stores 4 miles apart from each other all in different directions, then even for car users that’s a design failure.
If you insist there is no money to develop anything in those towns or re-plan the environment, that’s an unfortunate diagnosis for the area, but that also means EVs won’t work there because of lack of charging infrastructure, and the town will die out since nothing is being maintained. Let’s keep the discussion to just places that at least have enough money to reconsider their 8-lane stroads.
That's unfortunately the truth in most American rural towns. Take my town and their grocery store. My town back in the day apparently had a great town square, vibrant, very walkable. Over the years it's become more delapidated due to neglect, and businesses don't want to open there. Our grocery store left the downtown area so they could build a new one on the outskirts of town. People love it, it's bright, big, huge even, and of course, plenty of parking. So they think it's an absolute win. Except it's not. It was the town's only grocery store and now rather than having a walkable store from all the houses in town, everyone now gets in their car and drives 2 miles out of town, parks in the massive parking lot, and walks inside.
This is how commercial has all happened in small towns. It's left the downtown which you're right, would be very walkable, and has moved outside of town. On top of that, it's extremely anti-pedestrian, so even if there would be a bus added eventually, it would still require walking 1/4 mile from the bus stop across a parking lot just to get to the entrance of one of the stores.
The entire thing is ridiculous, and you're right for not understanding it. The only way it makes sense is if everyone is brainwashed into thinking that "it's better that I get to get into my car, drive 2 miles, and pick up my groceries, put them all in my car, drive 2 miles home, then bring them all inside"
I will say EVs do work there, and it's not because of charging infrastructure, but because everyone forgets that you can charge your car at home. Most residents are single family homes with 2, 3, hell even 4 car garages. Each space could have a charger, and every home could have solar added. Places like grocery stores can add chargers. In that small town we (for some reason) had 6 gas stations for our 15k people. They could be mandated to add some chargers, but even then, if everyone charged at home it's like leaving your house on a full tank every day. Very few people seem to think that way.
Transit is by far the superior option, but we're talking decades, centuries to hook up these small towns. In the short term, EVs will lower our dependence on fossil fuels at least.
Yeah. America isn’t the world.
Plenty of countries have functioning public transport.
America is not the exception, you can survive without cars.
They say, as I know people in the midwest who commute 1.5 hours each way to the city for their job and then turn around and drive home. I have a friend who lives in a town of no shit, 400 people.
There's no bus that goes there. It's 30 miles from the nearest "city" of 15,000, and he works another 20 miles past that.
Sure, they'll just not eat, not work, and not do anything. Dude I'm all for urbanization and adding mass transit, but you're going to be hard pressed to add rail routes or even bus routes to not just that one town of 400, but all the other thousands of tiny towns. Hell even the town of 15,000 doesn't have a rail route. Hell even the state capital is missing a rail route. Let alone commuter options.
I'm not saying America is an exception, I'm saying you're naive for thinking your one opinion will work for everyone, and that the problem is more nuanced then you understand.
That's why I brought up Cali HSR. It's been over a decade of planning and building that, and that's connecting two of the largest cities in the country, and you're just casually saying "Just build it everywhere". Like yes we want that too, but the realities of building that would be centuries of work.
Only the wealthy, tiny almost pointless to consider ones. Poor Countries and large Countries have no such infrastructure.
China has tons of it.
So does Russia.
Japan isn’t “small” (it’s the length of California) and has tons of it.
The EU is pretty big and all interconnects.
Size isn’t the issue. It certainly hasn’t prevented us from paving half our country.
China is unmovable by vehicle at all such that their failure of a mass transit system is trying busses on stilts.
Japan is tiny. I mean very tiny minuscule area of land.
Most of EU has no such thing. You are assuming it EU is Germany, France, and Belgium. PS, all the actual Countries (which EU isn't one) in the EU are tiny.
Size is a factor in cost and that is the real reason most Countries have no such thing as viable mass transit for the majority of their citizens. Paving sold cars and cars made corporations lots of money. Mass transit does the opposite and is thus objected to by same corpos.
Public transit is cheaper and more accessable. It would be quite easy to make it profitable. Private transportation is more expensive both on the production side and infrastructure side. The auto industry did a lot of scummy shit in order to make it profitable. In the US, they bought up and shut down just about every public transport corp in order to force the public to buy cars and force the state to build infrastructure.
China has a working HSR system connecting all their major cities. The fact that their population scale is so massive means they also try weird shit to get what they can.
Japan is very narrow but it’s also very long. The actual amount of miles a train much cover from one end to the other is very large.
Yes the EU is not one country (though it is a polity). That should make it harder, not easier to cover it with rail, and yet there’s rail lines connecting all the major cities crossing national borders. Does the “size” counter reset once you cross a line on the map?
It’s not the size, it’s the political organization. You even hint at this when describing how we paved America: the political and economic configuration was aligned to make it happen despite the massive cost. The USA was crisscrossed by passenger rail and street cars, and still is for cargo. We just took a different path later, but it doesn’t actually have to be that way.
Absolutely doesn't, and we should push them to bring back rail, but that will take a very very long time to build. Even major cities are missing rail links, they would need huge infrastructure to add it there, and then smaller links for the teeny tiny towns. We should do both - invest in good public transit, and also embrace stopgap measures.
We can both say "EVs are the solution for now" and also do things like "No new lanes will be added unless rail is considered first"
My issue with typical hybrids is that they got all the complexity of an ICE powertrain, in addition to all the complexity of an EV powertrain, plus the complexity of merging the two.
Slightly less efficient, but I think I'm more in support of EVs with gas range extenders. Maybe it's just a question of semantics. But more than that (if we're gonna keep cars) we need to invest in charging infrastructure. Idk why it sucks so bad, and why gas stations aren't installing charging stations.
It's a fair assumption that adding extra systems to the car makes it overall less reliable, but it's not necessarily true. Electric motors, compared to IC engines, are extremely simple and reliable. The servicing guidelines for the electric drivetrain in my hybrid is essentially "replace the battery if it stops holding enough charge", there is no schedule for any routine maintenance of those components. Adding the hybrid system also reduces the wear and tear on the conventional drivetrain and brakes. Hybrids can do regenerative braking, which means that (for my vehicle at least) most of the braking down to maybe 10mph is done by regen, which functionally has no wear and tear. The electric motors also assist the ICE at the times where peak wear and stress occur, reducing the load and stress on the motor, and extending it's lifespan. By adding the hybrid system, the overall reliability and lifespan of the vehicle is increased rather than decreased.
My issue isn't with adding electric to a gas car. My issue is adding gas to an electric car.
The ICE drive train adds a TON of complexity to an EV. If you're gonna add ICE to an EV I think that it makes more sense to have a little range-extender generator, which is simple and cheap (because it only needs to run at a single RPM and constant load) which you can just run to add a bit more charge to your battery on long road trips.
But ideally we'd just have better charging infrastructure.
What a weird take. If you add electric to a gas car, then yeah-maybeish.
But adding "hybrid" to an electric car sure will make it need waay more maintenance etc. that's just no discussion there.