The EPA’s final rule follows a concession to labor unions worried about a rapid shift to electric vehicles, and a nod that EV sales are slowing

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    81·
    9 months ago

    And then there’s the argument, that a hunk of aluminium with pistons is “cheaper” (in terms of ecological impact) than lithium.

    If you’re going to include the environmental impacts of the one-time lithium extraction (which are usually exaggerated anyway), you must also include the decades of environmental impact of petroleum exploration and extraction. You don’t get to count just the cost of burning the fuel either. You must include the of searching for new deposits, setting up extraction infrastructure, infrastructure for logistics for shipping all the raw then refined goods, and possibly even the costs and geopolitical impacts of war for securing petroleum interests globally.

    In fairness, I would also include the cost for electricity generation as a cost for BEVs for an apples-to-apples comparison. Electricity generation (transmission and distribution) will vary widely but we have these metrics for the USA at least. In extreme cases, there are BEVs charged with rooftop solar, which would SERIOUSLY undermine your argument about ICE vehicles being a better ecological choice.

    • nexusband@lemmy.world
      12·
      9 months ago

      If you’re going to include the environmental impacts of the one-time lithium extraction (which are usually exaggerated anyway), you must also include the decades of environmental impact of petroleum exploration and extraction.

      And that’s where your argument falls flat, because we are not talking about the past, we’re talking about the future and making it a better one. EVs are a part of that future, but not “the only” thing in that future.

      You don’t get to count just the cost of burning the fuel either. You must include the of searching for new deposits, setting up extraction infrastructure, infrastructure for logistics for shipping all the raw then refined goods, and possibly even the costs and geopolitical impacts of war for securing petroleum interests globally.

      You missed the point completely.

      In fairness, I would also include the cost for electricity generation as a cost for BEVs for an apples-to-apples comparison. Electricity generation (transmission and distribution) will vary widely but we have these metrics for the USA at least. In extreme cases, there are BEVs charged with rooftop solar, which would SERIOUSLY undermine your argument about ICE vehicles being a better ecological choice.

      No - they wouldn’t, for the simple fact, that zero co2 stays zero co2. They can be on par with a small battery, but everything above 60 kWh needs more than 15 tonnes of co2 to be even produced, making the rucksack impossible to get rid off. A current Golf needs around 9t of Co2 to be produced, a current ID.3 needs 14t

      So if both cars are “fueld” with energy that has zero co2 emissions, the ID.3 keeps it’s 5 tonnes deficit.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        If you’re going to include the environmental impacts of the one-time lithium extraction (which are usually exaggerated anyway), you must also include the decades of environmental impact of petroleum exploration and extraction.

        And that’s where your argument falls flat, because we are not talking about the past, we’re talking about the future and making it a better one. EVs are a part of that future, but not “the only” thing in that future.

        I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Your prior post seemed to make a comparison to the CO2 created with ICE vs with BEV. That’s what I was responding to. What “the future” thing has to do with that comparison? ICE and BEV vehicles are made today and the inputs are known. There is nothing ambiguous about today’s vehicles. You seem to suggest ICE are lower CO2 impact than BEV. I think you’re leaving out massive amounts of CO2 with ICE.

        You don’t get to count just the cost of burning the fuel either. You must include the of searching for new deposits, setting up extraction infrastructure, infrastructure for logistics for shipping all the raw then refined goods, and possibly even the costs and geopolitical impacts of war for securing petroleum interests globally.

        You missed the point completely.

        Feel free to restate it in a single clear statement. Your point is not clear from your prior post or this one.

        In fairness, I would also include the cost for electricity generation as a cost for BEVs for an apples-to-apples comparison. Electricity generation (transmission and distribution) will vary widely but we have these metrics for the USA at least. In extreme cases, there are BEVs charged with rooftop solar, which would SERIOUSLY undermine your argument about ICE vehicles being a better ecological choice.

        No - they wouldn’t, for the simple fact, that zero co2 stays zero co2. They can be on par with a small battery, but everything above 60 kWh needs more than 15 tonnes of co2 to be even produced, making the rucksack impossible to get rid off. A current Golf needs around 9t of Co2 to be produced, a current ID.3 needs 14t

        You’re calling out numbers for production of EV without including the equivalent ICE CO2 creation (and not just manufacturing). “rucksack”?

        So if both cars are “fueld” with energy that has zero co2 emissions, the ID.3 keeps it’s 5 tonnes deficit.

        Where are you getting efficiently created, consumable. and widely available ICE fuel with zero CO2 impacts?