this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
458 points (85.4% liked)

solarpunk memes

2629 readers
1751 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 197 points 3 months ago (33 children)

I both agree and disagree, because this comic is dangerously vague.

A good example is electric cars. It would be great if everyone switched to electric cars, but it would be even better if we built a city that didn't treat pedestrians, cyclists, and public commuters as second class.

The difference being the latter doesn't let private equity make fat returns.

And yes ofc we can both.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Honestly it would not be better if everyone switched to electric cars. Yes, we should prioritize new cars being electric, but building an electric car is worse than using an existing car all the way to the end of its lifecycle. And yes obviously public transport and infrastructure to promote pedestrians/cyclists is also ideal.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 20 points 3 months ago (8 children)

There around 1000 life cycle cost analyses that disprove this idea by now. It takes only a few years of driving electric to pay off the carbon debt from manufacturing, assuming average driving behavior.

Of course, this is complicated because we should be dramatically reducing driving. But for most people it does not make sense to keep a gas car as a daily driver.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'd love to see one of these analyses, this is new information to me.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-30999-3

It does depend somewhat on the specifics but for the vast majority of cases EVs are just better.

They’re still bad mind you, it’s just that ICE vehicles are so much worse.

Edit: This one might be a bit more directly applicable: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-21-misleading-myths-about-electric-vehicles/

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

I'm not paying $40 to read the first, but the numbers in the second match my napkin estimations, so I assume it's pretty reasonable in its conclusions.

However, there are other considerations. For instance, if you don't drive much and have a reasonably efficient ICE, continuing to use your existing vehicle may give you the opportunity to wait for EV manufacturing and operation emissions to drop significantly.

I spent some time outlining some formulas to determine the ideal break even points when accounting for multiple factors like vehicle lifespan and rate of efficiency increase but the math got... complicated pretty quickly. And that's before taking into account the non GHG impacts of EV manufacturing.

Suffice to say, it's certainly not as simple as "always drive your ICE into the ground", but it's also not as simple as "everyone should switch ASAP". For many people with relatively efficient ICEs it can very well be worth it to wait maybe 5-10 years for the next generation of batteries to become widespread.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your study is locked behind a paywall :(

For a fun comparison, I usually run the numbers for our 2004 Audi A2 with biodiesel (HVO100) against the most efficient electric vehicles, based on Swedish grid emissions and then US emissions.

The Audi runs at 4L/100km (real world numbers) x 256g/L (compensated emissions according to Neste) = 1024g/100km

Versus the Hyundai Ioniq 6 (current most efficient EV according to mestmotor in real world testing) with a consumption of 15.5kWh/100km * 41g/kWh (Sweden according to ourworldindata) * 1.15 (charging losses) = 730.8g/100km.

For the US that's 15.5kWh/100km * 369g/kWh *1.15 = 6577.4g/100km.

So compared to a US EV our car runs with a whopping 6th of the real emissions. Assuming the same production impact that your article linked it would take 11tons*10000000grams/(1024-730.8)grams/km = 37517 kilometers

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

Interesting analysis but I don’t think biodiesel is very comparable for most people. Also, very hard to account for emissions with biofuels, so I’d be curious how accurate your numbers are.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)