Great, but when are we actually going to redesign our society so that we don’t need cars? Electric Vehicles are not a path to lower emissions overall, and are also only “green” if you measure tail-pipe emissions and ignore all other aspects of vehicle ownership.
EVs are a path to lower emissions, yes measured all aspects from cradle to grave. I mean c’mon this has been so well established you’re just lying. Yes we also need to get rid of car dependent cities.
EVs should also last a long time, far longer than an ICE vehicle. So overall costs are actually lower, though yes the initial price is higher.
You’re misunderstanding his point. Yes, from cradle to grave EVs are better than ICEs. But they aren’t better than other alternatives. The other costs the commenter is referring to is all the other costs of car ownership: building roads and parking lots, building sprawling car-dependant suburbs which destroy ecosystems and inflate infrastructure costs, the tens of thousands of annual car deaths and millions of car injuries, microplastics from tires, heavy metal dust from brakes, the induspitable contribution of car dependence to the obesity epidemic, the exacerbation of inequality, etc. etc.
EVs are better than ICEs but they’re still cars, that’s the main point. They’re touted as a solution to environmental problems: which they are not, period. The solutions revolve around better land use (eliminating zoning laws which establish car dominance and sprawl), less subsidization of the auto industry (it’s to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the USA), more subsidization of the public transit industry, and a commitment by people and politicians to build walkable places and enable car free living.
EVs are a small part of a complex and multifaceted issue. They are part of the solution, but only a small part compared to the commitments we silently ignore because of the plea that EVs will save us.
EVs do not last “far longer” then an ICE vehicle. The oldest EV is <15years old and Tesla doesn’t even support the original roadster anymore. They are built to be disposable so that Tesla can keep selling cars. Plus EVs have a large ramping costs in terms of batteries that far exceed anything an ICE vehicle will ever have. Even with battery recycling, which doesn’t actually exist yet at any significant scale, you still don’t have a standard design that is expected to work on any other vehicle model then the one it came with. This means that eventually there will be as many battery “types” as there are models of EV, and that also means charging won’t stay universal either. So eventually an old EV, say ~20 years, won’t be able to use public charging infra, even if the battery problem was sorted out.
When I see people advocating for EV’s I see people who don’t care about the problems cars cause.
Lol electric motors are so simple they can last a million miles. Batteries are the hard part, but you can swap batteries and Tesla was even aiming for a million mile battery. But you want to wahhhhhhhhhh the literal first production vehicle had problems lol.
Way to not address literally any part of my post. I didn’t even bring up the problems of the original roadster. I said that it IS NOT SUPPORTED anymore. Meaning that it’s life was <15years, which is NOT “far longer” then any ICE vehicle.
Then you just gloss over the meat of the post which is that batteries are an incredibly expensive and wasteful part of the cost of EV ownership, and that problem still hasn’t been addressed in >20 years of EV development. You think we can just “swap batteries” as if that isn’t an absurdly expensive procedure that most car owners cannot do on their own.
What does not supported anymore mean? It uses the same charge port I think. So no updates like a regular car? And I guess no brand battery swap if it dies? Has this happened a lot?
Current EVs are software driven and wirelessly connected. (It doesn’t have to be that way, but all EVs that exist in the market today are.) This means that if the vendor stops supporting the car with updates that eventually things like Charging won’t work anymore, and possibly other features. Not because their is any mechanical reason for them not to work, but because of the software reliance between charging stations and the car you are driving. It would be like trying to use Lemmy with Internet Explorer 5. It won’t work. Again it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, but Car Manufactures don’t want to sell cars anymore they wants to sell cars as a service, and the software support sun setting is part of that strategy.
I didn’t bring up [problem], I changed the wording to a [different problem] lol.
Batteries improve, you already have Tesla working on a million mile battery. Recycling will come, you’re just wahhhhhhhh it’s not here yet. It’s all wahhhhhh it’s not 100% right from the very start of the literal first production vehicle wahhhh!! You may continue your wahhhh rage, that’s all it is. Peace.
I’m curious what city planning without any cars would look like. I’ve been to parts of Europe, and the cities were very walkable. However, I didn’t see any industry in the places where I was staying. How would goods be transported? How would people in loud/polluting industries get from where they live to where they work?
Absolutely, these are all totally valid questions to ask and answer as we build walkable places.
Goods do need to move: from hubs (ports, airports) to distribution centers (warehouses) to their “last mile” destinations (stores, restaurants etc). Cars and vans are great ways to move goods even to destinations: even pedestrian streets allow delivery trucks in at low speeds and/or off peak hours. It’s just private cars not allowed in these people-centric places. Though bike delivery is increasingly popular in dense walkable places.
As for heavy industry, it’s true that these places tend to be underserved by useful transit. In a lot of walkable places these kinds of places do have transit: especially industrial parks which can be pretty dense if designed properly. But if transit is truly infeasible, driving is totally acceptable to these places. The goal of a walkable community isn’t to eliminate all car trips. They’re absolutely a useful tool that will continue to play an important role in our cities and towns.
The goal of a walkable trip is to reduce the number of car trips and eliminate the low hanging fruit. Going to school, going to the shops or to get groceries, visiting your friends and family, going to the doctor: in a lot of places these trips can only be done by car because of how we build our cities and towns. There will always be trips for which cars are the best tool: we just need to make it a goal to reduce those trips through thoughtful land use and city building.
Great, but when are we actually going to redesign our society so that we don’t need cars? Electric Vehicles are not a path to lower emissions overall, and are also only “green” if you measure tail-pipe emissions and ignore all other aspects of vehicle ownership.
Not to mention the market costs of EVs.
EVs are a path to lower emissions, yes measured all aspects from cradle to grave. I mean c’mon this has been so well established you’re just lying. Yes we also need to get rid of car dependent cities.
EVs should also last a long time, far longer than an ICE vehicle. So overall costs are actually lower, though yes the initial price is higher.
You’re misunderstanding his point. Yes, from cradle to grave EVs are better than ICEs. But they aren’t better than other alternatives. The other costs the commenter is referring to is all the other costs of car ownership: building roads and parking lots, building sprawling car-dependant suburbs which destroy ecosystems and inflate infrastructure costs, the tens of thousands of annual car deaths and millions of car injuries, microplastics from tires, heavy metal dust from brakes, the induspitable contribution of car dependence to the obesity epidemic, the exacerbation of inequality, etc. etc.
EVs are better than ICEs but they’re still cars, that’s the main point. They’re touted as a solution to environmental problems: which they are not, period. The solutions revolve around better land use (eliminating zoning laws which establish car dominance and sprawl), less subsidization of the auto industry (it’s to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the USA), more subsidization of the public transit industry, and a commitment by people and politicians to build walkable places and enable car free living.
EVs are a small part of a complex and multifaceted issue. They are part of the solution, but only a small part compared to the commitments we silently ignore because of the plea that EVs will save us.
EVs do not last “far longer” then an ICE vehicle. The oldest EV is <15years old and Tesla doesn’t even support the original roadster anymore. They are built to be disposable so that Tesla can keep selling cars. Plus EVs have a large ramping costs in terms of batteries that far exceed anything an ICE vehicle will ever have. Even with battery recycling, which doesn’t actually exist yet at any significant scale, you still don’t have a standard design that is expected to work on any other vehicle model then the one it came with. This means that eventually there will be as many battery “types” as there are models of EV, and that also means charging won’t stay universal either. So eventually an old EV, say ~20 years, won’t be able to use public charging infra, even if the battery problem was sorted out.
When I see people advocating for EV’s I see people who don’t care about the problems cars cause.
Lol electric motors are so simple they can last a million miles. Batteries are the hard part, but you can swap batteries and Tesla was even aiming for a million mile battery. But you want to wahhhhhhhhhh the literal first production vehicle had problems lol.
Way to not address literally any part of my post. I didn’t even bring up the problems of the original roadster. I said that it IS NOT SUPPORTED anymore. Meaning that it’s life was <15years, which is NOT “far longer” then any ICE vehicle.
Then you just gloss over the meat of the post which is that batteries are an incredibly expensive and wasteful part of the cost of EV ownership, and that problem still hasn’t been addressed in >20 years of EV development. You think we can just “swap batteries” as if that isn’t an absurdly expensive procedure that most car owners cannot do on their own.
What does not supported anymore mean? It uses the same charge port I think. So no updates like a regular car? And I guess no brand battery swap if it dies? Has this happened a lot?
Current EVs are software driven and wirelessly connected. (It doesn’t have to be that way, but all EVs that exist in the market today are.) This means that if the vendor stops supporting the car with updates that eventually things like Charging won’t work anymore, and possibly other features. Not because their is any mechanical reason for them not to work, but because of the software reliance between charging stations and the car you are driving. It would be like trying to use Lemmy with Internet Explorer 5. It won’t work. Again it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, but Car Manufactures don’t want to sell cars anymore they wants to sell cars as a service, and the software support sun setting is part of that strategy.
I didn’t bring up [problem], I changed the wording to a [different problem] lol.
Batteries improve, you already have Tesla working on a million mile battery. Recycling will come, you’re just wahhhhhhhh it’s not here yet. It’s all wahhhhhh it’s not 100% right from the very start of the literal first production vehicle wahhhh!! You may continue your wahhhh rage, that’s all it is. Peace.
I’m curious what city planning without any cars would look like. I’ve been to parts of Europe, and the cities were very walkable. However, I didn’t see any industry in the places where I was staying. How would goods be transported? How would people in loud/polluting industries get from where they live to where they work?
Anyone have the answers to these questions?
Absolutely, these are all totally valid questions to ask and answer as we build walkable places.
Goods do need to move: from hubs (ports, airports) to distribution centers (warehouses) to their “last mile” destinations (stores, restaurants etc). Cars and vans are great ways to move goods even to destinations: even pedestrian streets allow delivery trucks in at low speeds and/or off peak hours. It’s just private cars not allowed in these people-centric places. Though bike delivery is increasingly popular in dense walkable places.
As for heavy industry, it’s true that these places tend to be underserved by useful transit. In a lot of walkable places these kinds of places do have transit: especially industrial parks which can be pretty dense if designed properly. But if transit is truly infeasible, driving is totally acceptable to these places. The goal of a walkable community isn’t to eliminate all car trips. They’re absolutely a useful tool that will continue to play an important role in our cities and towns.
The goal of a walkable trip is to reduce the number of car trips and eliminate the low hanging fruit. Going to school, going to the shops or to get groceries, visiting your friends and family, going to the doctor: in a lot of places these trips can only be done by car because of how we build our cities and towns. There will always be trips for which cars are the best tool: we just need to make it a goal to reduce those trips through thoughtful land use and city building.