Secondly coal isn’t nearly as bad as you might thing relative to gasoline. Simply producing gasoline releases significant CO2. Refineries alone release approximately 2.5 lb of CO2 for each gallon of gas, add in exploration, extraction, and transportation means gasoline is doing a lot of damage before reaching your car. Next gasoline > car engines > transmissions is vastly less efficient than EV’s coal > power plants > electric grid > batteries > EV transmission.
Net result while some of the energy comes from hydrogen in gasoline it’s still actually worse for the environment than coal, much worse than natural gas, and vastly worse than everything else.
https://www.avere.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/englisch_St...
This is straight up false. These same points are addressed again and again and again and again by EV supporters but I guess (if I took your claim seriously) no one actually pays attention? (See the sibling comments for folks responding to them.)
I mean, you might still disagree with what they have to say, but you CANNOT claim they don’t address those extremely common points. Is it okay to just repeat a lie like that for rhetorical purposes?
I never understood this scenario. Any situation where there is no electricity supply also means you wouldn't be able to pump gas. You do realize gas stations run on electricity right?
If you are concerned about emergency readiness, keeping a reserve fuel level in a typical gas (incl. hybrid) cars tank that provides more range than even the overly generous EPA-listed range of any pure electric short of a Tesla Model S Long Range Plus is eminently practical. So, if there is a recharging/fueling outage and need to evacuate, gas wins.
2. Never heard this one, what kind of apocalypse are you foreseeing ?
3. Centralised generation is easier to mitigate, and later replace with clean generation.
Though, couldn't you charge your car with a gas generator in an emergency if you really needed to?
2. Mass evacuations by car are inherently inefficient, we should use public transport.
2. or... petrol supply requires transportation whereas electrical supply does not, the former does not seem inherently better than the latter.
2. or... it's as impractical for everyone to fill up their cars in an emergency as it is for everyone to charge their cars.
Honestly, I don't think petrol is any better here – we've just got more cases of this mostly working with petrol cars, and no examples either way yet for electric cars.
3. Oil refinement for an amount of petrol takes roughly as much energy as an electric car takes to go that distance, so we aren't just shifting oil -> electricity, we're actually doing (oil + electricity) -> electricity. This gives us an immediate and significant win on overall fossil fuel emissions even if electricity is entirely generated with fossil fuels.
3. Coal burning infrastructure is not in any way inextricably linked to the power to charge electric vehicles. Coal burning happens to be how much of the US/China gets its electricity for powering electric cars but the fact that solar power can be fed into the grid with no changes to anything else shows that the "inextricably" is false.
3. Coal burning happens to be used in some countries but in others, green energy production is far more available and there electric cars are much better for the environment.
> We need to realize that the motivation to deploy EVs too early is driven by profit rather than by motives in environmental protection and conservation of resources, then the really productive conversations can occur.
Companies are driven by profit, yes, however there are vast, immediate, benefits to the use of electric cars, as well as significant future benefits that can be realised as we transition off fossil fuels. Saying that EVs cannot be motivated by environmental benefits is disingenuous.
EVs get cleaner as the grid does, there is no need to wait. EVs are already at least on par with the cleanest ICE cars on every mix of energy generation in the US and only getting better as coal plants shut down and the grid shifts to renewable. Waiting is letting perfect be the enemy of good. No one is suggesting switching to EVs is a solution to climate change. Cleaning up the grid and electrifying everything is a solution, of which EVs are a part.
Used EV batteries command a serious premium for all sorts of re-use. Recycling of the raw materials will be economically valuable once batteries are no longer useful for even stationary grid storage
As others have pointed out, when the power is off gas pumps don't work either. If you're concerned about evac practice good charging hygiene the same way you would store potable water and food. Plug in each day and the battery will always have tons of range.
only in countries which haven't yet decarbonised (decarboned?) their energy infrastructure. In france for example, 90% of electricity is non carbon, and that rises to 100% for several smaller countries
1. What happens to all the giant lithium batteries on these vehicles after they reach end of life?
2. How will people be able to evacuate a city or state in an emergency situation when charging/electric supply is not present (which is always likely to happen)?
3. Coal burning infrastructure is still inextricably involved in generating the power to charge these vehicles, that must be considered in terms of overall value of EVs in reducing environmental impacts of fossil fuel elimination.
We need to realize that the motivation to deploy EVs too early is driven by profit rather than by motives in environmental protection and conservation of resources, then the really productive conversations can occur.