Are you saying that the emission resulting from an EVs production is the same as the emission from and olds car production and lifetime of fuel usage combined?
Comment on Canada to announce all new cars must be zero emissions by 2035
bratosch@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Is that no emissions at all along the cars life from production to scrap? Cus EVs today are in large just virtue vehicles.
Fisk400@feddit.nu 6 months ago
bratosch@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Production of batteries, handling discarded batteries, breaking of minerals FOR the batteries, and producing the electricity have all been shown to be worse for the environment than than the entire life of a traditional car
andthenthreemore@startrek.website 6 months ago
You got something to back that up? The last study I read (I think it was from Volvo comparing one of their EVs against the ICE version of the car) showed between 60 and 80 thousand miles (depending on the energy generation mix) was the tipping point where EVs became better.
And that was probably about 5 years ago, there’s been a lot of significant development in EVs since then.
bratosch@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Well, please show me a trustworthy study of the difference between ICE and EV emissions per mile during their lifetime. The ones I’ve read always say “in their lifetime”, but they don’t take into account EV batteries need changing after about 10 years … And batteries are as we know the “big bad” of EVs. The absolutely only true comparison would be all emissions from all sources spread out over either per mile or per year. A combustion car can easily last 20 years, which isn’t really a fair comparison to the 10 years.
Fisk400@feddit.nu 6 months ago
No calculation I hage ever read has ever shown that. There is an initial increase of emission from the new cars production, which is why there are discussion about retrofitting existing cars, but even if we never improve our battery technology there is a dramatic gain in lowered emissions.
franklin@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Dependable and available public transit is the answer to our transportation needs with electric vehicles substituted in areas where they will not work.
But absolutely public transit first because electric cars cannot be the backbone of our system.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 6 months ago
In Canada?
Obviously the metro areas and immediate surrounding suburbs can improve, but it’s a huge country
themelm@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
I dunno some intercity buses and trains would be nice… Like unless you can fly or rent a car I don’t know how you get to most of the country without your own car.
franklin@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You mean like where 80% of our population is?
GBU_28@lemm.ee 6 months ago
I do mean. That. Where did I suggest otherwise? Is Canada big a huge country?
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Hahahaha public transit.
Have you looked at the energy/environmental costs of trains or busses?
Hint: they both consume the same energy fully loaded or empty, as a start.
And train infrastructure is a massive user of concrete, steel, copper, etc.
franklin@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Per capita it’s insanely lower than the personal cost alternative.
wewbull@feddit.uk 6 months ago
Why would you measure per capita? Not everyone will use it. How about per passenger?
bobgusford@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Carbon tax deals with industries that creates emissions by taxing the fuels that cause the emissions. All businesses involved in making EVs and EV parts can choose between using taxed GhG-emitting fuels, or cheaper renewable sources. Free markets will pick the winner, but at least all winners will be producing EVs only.
mondo_brondo@lemmy.world 6 months ago
What makes you say that?
jonesy@aussie.zone 6 months ago
Interested to see where that data comes from, as looking at the lifetime emissions of an EV vs an ICE vehicle inclusive of fuel EVs are generally significantly lower emissions. If you’re only considering the emissions associated with the manufacture of the vehicles, EVs do result in more GHG, but very quickly once both vehicles are actually in use the benefits of EVs become apparent.
EPA.gov
MIT
New York Times
University of Technology Sydney
Cambridge University
Enkers@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
While somewhat misguided, they do still kinda have a point: Car centric culture really does have a high environmental cost regardless of power source. Switching from ICE to EV is a good start, but we also need to address urban sprawl, and push for better mass transit as well as cycling infrastructure.
AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
I’m working from memory, but I think I have heard their claim before, and the data it is based on is probably 20 years out of date. The proportion of electricity produced by methods like solar and wind did not used to be what it is today, and the production method of electricity plays a significant role in lifecycle analysis of electric vehicles.
The Cambridge link you provided notes that electric vehicles are not better for the environment in Poland because most of their electricity is produced by burning coal. It also compares France and the UK, and notes the difference between emissions because of the different production mix of electricity.
AA5B@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I believe I saw similar comparing US states, but do not have a link. The numbers I remember is 1-2 years in states with more natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy, up to 14 years for West Virginia and Wyoming as still mostly coal
frezik@midwest.social 6 months ago
IIRC, if you pick the worst state (W. Virginia) and the worst EV (the Hummer), you end up with a pathological combination that’s worse than any ICE. Literally any other combination, and it’s better.