this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
665 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59314 readers
5192 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No they don't.
The UK national grid estimates there needs to be a 4-5% increase each year, for roughly 15 years. That's achievable.
The US won't be too different.
Why quadruple. Where are you getting this from?
They obviously won't.
Fossil fuel power plants don't count. EVs running of fossil fuel make no sense. Remove them from the equation and my prediction becomes extremely optimistic.
EVs are currently running partially on fossil fuel just fine and generating less pollution than ICEs because power plant efficiency is still better than combustion engine efficiency.
That is nowhere near enough. It's 33% versus 40% difference between co2/kWh . we need zero co2/kWh or else it's all a waste of time.
It's only acceptable if we are transitioning to zero emission grid. If we stay on natural gas then it won't even move the needle.
We are transitioning towards it, but in the meantime, switching to EVs still reduces CO2 output and because the grid is getting cleaner, that means EVs get cleaner even after being manufactured and sold, whereas ICEs can only get cleaner through R&D and only get worse over time as they age (once they start burning oil, etc)
A few percentage points reduction in co2 emission isn't going to move the needle. The whole grid has to shutdown fossil fuel energy production for this transition to make sense.
If you let perfect be the enemy of good, nothing ever gets done, because nothing is ever perfect right away.
This change is already happening, an EV now in most western countries is significantly cleaner than an ICE and like I said, an ICE is doomed to spew gases for the remainder of its lifetime whereas EVs keep getting because the grid keeps getting cleaner.
And even better, these statistics assume a 200k km lifetime for all cars. It tends to be much more than that, making the initial battery manufacturing even less impactful to the total CO2 production.
I'm more worried that after splurging on EVs now we don't go through with the act that actually makes a difference. After all we've already got the personal social reward of doing "the right thing tm". We can party and forget the climate doomerism my new Tesla saved the world, yay ! Personal responsibility and the free market has prevailed !
In what world don't they count?
They can power EVs. And running an EV on fossil fuel electricity is still far less polluting than running a petrol or diesel car.
One large generator at its most efficient setting is far more efficient than tens of thousands of small ones starting from cold multiple times per day, that aren't necessarily maintained well, and are constantly going through their rev range.
Where are your sources for any of what you're saying?
No , if you run EVs off a grid fossil fuel generator, that's the difference between 33% and 40% efficient. It's not enough to move the needle. It doesn't even pay for itself in terms of emissions.
The energy source absolutely has to be ZERO emissions as well. If not then it's just climate cope.
What the hell are you talking about? That's not how people charge EVs.
EVs on their own are typically 90%+ efficient. Although some are as low as ~85%.
Even running on a generator, though, they'd still be more efficient than any ICE engine found in a car, aside from a Formula 1 engine.
EVs are far cleaner, even if ran on a fossil fuel energy grid.
fossil fuel power plant are tops 40% efficient while ice powered cars are around 33%.
If you power you EV off a fossil fuel power plant, then that difference, minus the grid losses, the charging losses and then the inverter and motor losses, is how much co2 emissions you are saving.
Of course that's assuming your driving habits don't change, with that high upfront investment and relatively lower per mile costs compared to using gasoline.
And that's not to mention the one time emission from the production of that EV amortised on its 15 year hoped-for lifetime.
Beside capturing government subsidies and the arbitrage saving from using temporarily cheaper electricity as fuel, I don't see EVs making much sense either from an economic or a saving the planet standpoint.
Without a zero emission energy production as the source, EVs don't make sense beyond hype and cope.
All fossil fuel electrical generation, and that includes natural gas, has to be shutdown. Or else it will not make a lick of difference.
EVs are less polluting than ICE cars even if ran on a grid 100% fossil fuel powered.
On a typical mixed energy grid, they pollute less than ICE vehicles after ~2 years.
Stop making up nonsense.