Re:‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That ...
by ehnto on Saturday December 31, 2022 @12:27AM
(#34193884)
> More greenhouse gases are emitted in the manufacture of EVs than by the drilling, refining, smelting, and assembly for gas-powered cars.
To be flippant, no kidding, that isn't surprising. Maybe we can power our cars off the energy spent talking past eachother over EVs the past decade.
The design goal of an EV is less emissions at the tailpipe, and to eventually be propelled by renewable electricity depending on your local grid.
The benefits of that are cleaner city air, and eventually lower carbon emissions from the generation of the energy that propels them. A current downside to that is the minerals used to make the batteries are costly to get.
EVs are one option forward, hydrogen ICE might be cool too. Neither is perfect yet, but they both have promising futures to be more sustainable than petrol/diesel.
Mining itself is an industry currently undergoing more electrification, which will bring down the carbon emissions of mining those minerals. Hydrogen from renewable energy is also possible, it just isn't cost effective versus fossil fuel derrived hydrogen while we still externalize the impact of fossil fuels.
Re:‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That ...
by theshrike79 on Saturday December 31, 2022 @08:33AM
(#34196289)
Hydrogen ICE is a pipe dream. BMW tried it in the early 2000's and failed. Toyota is prototyping it without much fanfare. (Their current test car, a tiny Yaris can do two laps of the test rink before refueling and maintenance).
All cars in the future will be propelled by electric motors. The only thing we're arguing is how are they going to transport the energy. Batteries? Hydrogen fuel cell? Some kind of generator, running biogas or 100% synthetic fuel? Most likely all of the above, depending on the use-case.
Re:‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That ...
by fortran77 on Saturday December 31, 2022 @09:26AM
(#34196680)
ICE == "Internal Combustion Engine"
The current "Hydrogen Cars" don't have Internal Combustion Engines, they have electric motors powered by fuel cells.
Re:‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That ...
by tostonescon on Saturday December 31, 2022 @12:30AM
(#34193898)
Well the article is paywalled, but:
1. I don't think anyone is under the delusion that electric vehicles consume no fossil fuel generated electricity. "Zero emissions" has never meant "free energy"
2. That electricity is typically produced more efficiently, and is always consumed more efficiently in terms of emissions/distance vs ICE cars leading to a net lower emissions of EVs over lifetime (including raw material & production). This only improves as more of the grid is decarbonized
3. There is a material value to de-localizing emissions from roads. See: asthma rates in children living near freeways
Re:‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That ...
by idontwantthis on Saturday December 31, 2022 @12:33AM
(#34193910)
Is it worth responding to?
GM and Ford are converting their lineups to EVs. It's happening, and right wing reactionaries are going to get lower rates of cancer, heart disease and asthma whether they want it or not.
Re:‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That ...
by mdp2021 on Saturday December 31, 2022 @04:56AM
(#34195055)
> title
You should be used to the illegitimacy of reading a title on the literal side, that so frequently comes compressing an idea in a short sentence. The first paragraph makes a specific reference, with a link, to the interpretation of «zero emissions» the article intends to counter.
There's little merit cherry picking and trying to impose a different context to what was meant.
Zero emission solutions doesn't imply zero emissions from the vehicle. Energy is being expended to create movement and as such will likely generate heat or noise even with the most efficient ever propulsion system that a team of the brightest might be able to create with present day technology.
Electric promises to usher in cleaner air in city streets and undoubtedly the fire during an accident issue might one day be solved.
I do actually see some big catches or issues with going electric ... the inevitable gotcha moment when most vehicles have to rely on batteries, I would guess first the battery price steeply increasing to eventually integrating security features into the modern car that at present most of us would find totally unpalatable.
It's sad that it reached a point where govt had to phase out IC car engines, but the car industry never showed much thought about using 6 stroke engines or seriously exploring other means to get as much energy out of the burnt fuel as they could.
Re:‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That ...
by anenefan on Saturday December 31, 2022 @07:29PM
(#34202257)
Yes the context of what zero emissions means seems simple enough, but there will be those who'll cherry pick right the way though from manufacture and environmental burden.
As for fires, presently not much of an issue bar the immediate issue of a burning car, but presents a problem should the batteries remain as is when there is a time when most cars on the road and large car parks are EV - it would be better if the industry adopted better batteries sooner rather than later rather than count on further income generated when the owners eventually move to a better battery configuration. eg [1]
Toyota has a 6 stroke, sorry I missed that. I follow such engine improvements with interest, but not so much since a 8 stroke was developed and news of it buried. (It was a test bench only engine, and didn't need additional cooling, said to be 225% than standard engine) Sadly I'm unable to find any additional information on it or the Toyota 6 stroke, but then again when I went decided to also look for details on the large 6 strokes that were used for power generation, one such large engine I'm sure was mentioned at length at wikipedia - it too seems to be yet another entry, that's been cleaned up and mention of it dropped. [2]
Re:‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That ...
by theshrike79 on Sunday January 01, 2023 @02:47AM
(#34204482)
> there will be those who'll cherry pick right the way though from manufacture and environmental burden.
Yep, people tend to calculate EV emissions all the way from the "child miners of Congo". For ICEs they just grab whatever the manufacturer reports coughVWcough
Re:‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That ...
by alkonaut on Saturday December 31, 2022 @05:06AM
(#34195111)
Don’t build electric vehicle batteries using non-renewable electricity for a start. If the battery is 100% built with renewable and you charge the car for its entire lifetime with renewable then it has to be acceptably low in emissions.
The “zero emissions” obviously only applies to creating movement, but the lifetime comparison to ICE is still relevant.
It sounds true but no evidence was provided.
Example they could compare a Ford F150 and one of the new F150 electric models. If there is a difference, the percentage is also significant.
The life time environmental/economic costs extend far beyond manufacture. Which is all this is claiming anyway at the highest.
To be flippant, no kidding, that isn't surprising. Maybe we can power our cars off the energy spent talking past eachother over EVs the past decade.
The design goal of an EV is less emissions at the tailpipe, and to eventually be propelled by renewable electricity depending on your local grid.
The benefits of that are cleaner city air, and eventually lower carbon emissions from the generation of the energy that propels them. A current downside to that is the minerals used to make the batteries are costly to get.
EVs are one option forward, hydrogen ICE might be cool too. Neither is perfect yet, but they both have promising futures to be more sustainable than petrol/diesel.
Mining itself is an industry currently undergoing more electrification, which will bring down the carbon emissions of mining those minerals. Hydrogen from renewable energy is also possible, it just isn't cost effective versus fossil fuel derrived hydrogen while we still externalize the impact of fossil fuels.
All cars in the future will be propelled by electric motors. The only thing we're arguing is how are they going to transport the energy. Batteries? Hydrogen fuel cell? Some kind of generator, running biogas or 100% synthetic fuel? Most likely all of the above, depending on the use-case.
1. I don't think anyone is under the delusion that electric vehicles consume no fossil fuel generated electricity. "Zero emissions" has never meant "free energy"
2. That electricity is typically produced more efficiently, and is always consumed more efficiently in terms of emissions/distance vs ICE cars leading to a net lower emissions of EVs over lifetime (including raw material & production). This only improves as more of the grid is decarbonized
3. There is a material value to de-localizing emissions from roads. See: asthma rates in children living near freeways
No one has ever claimed that the process of making an EV vehicle is “zero emission”. Of course it’s not, what a ridiculous title.
You should be used to the illegitimacy of reading a title on the literal side, that so frequently comes compressing an idea in a short sentence. The first paragraph makes a specific reference, with a link, to the interpretation of «zero emissions» the article intends to counter.
There's little merit cherry picking and trying to impose a different context to what was meant.
Zero emission solutions doesn't imply zero emissions from the vehicle. Energy is being expended to create movement and as such will likely generate heat or noise even with the most efficient ever propulsion system that a team of the brightest might be able to create with present day technology.
Electric promises to usher in cleaner air in city streets and undoubtedly the fire during an accident issue might one day be solved.
I do actually see some big catches or issues with going electric ... the inevitable gotcha moment when most vehicles have to rely on batteries, I would guess first the battery price steeply increasing to eventually integrating security features into the modern car that at present most of us would find totally unpalatable.
It's sad that it reached a point where govt had to phase out IC car engines, but the car industry never showed much thought about using 6 stroke engines or seriously exploring other means to get as much energy out of the burnt fuel as they could.
As for fires, presently not much of an issue bar the immediate issue of a burning car, but presents a problem should the batteries remain as is when there is a time when most cars on the road and large car parks are EV - it would be better if the industry adopted better batteries sooner rather than later rather than count on further income generated when the owners eventually move to a better battery configuration. eg [1]
Toyota has a 6 stroke, sorry I missed that. I follow such engine improvements with interest, but not so much since a 8 stroke was developed and news of it buried. (It was a test bench only engine, and didn't need additional cooling, said to be 225% than standard engine) Sadly I'm unable to find any additional information on it or the Toyota 6 stroke, but then again when I went decided to also look for details on the large 6 strokes that were used for power generation, one such large engine I'm sure was mentioned at length at wikipedia - it too seems to be yet another entry, that's been cleaned up and mention of it dropped. [2]
[1] https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/10/17/lithium-ion-battery-safety/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
Yep, people tend to calculate EV emissions all the way from the "child miners of Congo". For ICEs they just grab whatever the manufacturer reports coughVWcough
The “zero emissions” obviously only applies to creating movement, but the lifetime comparison to ICE is still relevant.