• Announcements

    • Kisa the Cat

      World Watch Archiving Project

      Hello everyone, Please read this thread before posting to World Watch Thank you.
    • Kisa the Cat

      Avenues May/June   05/09/17

      Hello AVENites! The newest edition of AVENues is now ready! Our theme this time was "ace connections".  May/June
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Yato God of Tofu

Electric cars are not that eco-friendly.

81 posts in this topic

https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/

 

Study shows electric cars are not as eco-friendly as gas cars, due to how much co2 is created in producing the batteries. Which one battery, depending on size, can produce as much co2 as one gas car does in 8 years. 

 

This means if they become the norm, it will be worse for the enviroment in the long run. Also battery disposal is toxic as fuck.

 

This once again proves that green energy "solutions" are usually a marketing scam. 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, that's why I believe it's necessary for us to move away from a system such as capitalism which produces far too much waste as things are. I could send you links showing exactly how small a proportion of the world produces a lot of the CO2 if you want. Anyway, I'd love to have a serious conversation about what may or may not be possible to fix in terms of global climate change and other environmental problems :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually heard far too much of this growing up, as my dad has this idea he's talked about without doing anything with for so long that it's hard not to see it as pure delusions of grandeur: he had this idea for a car engine which he linked up to material science and all these other processes he wanted to change, and the house could run on the energy it produced, and it could run off of hydrogen power, but not the type which is used at the moment, and etc etc...

It made me really depressed about the world.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a solution, without sacrificing modern society. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. It's technology in general, and production if it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article talks about research that's showing a possible new material to be used instead of lithium batteries. It seems as if  it is less detrimental to the environment to make compared to lithium batteries: http://www.mestmotor.se/recharge/artiklar/nyheter/20161206/superbatterier-kanske-inte-behovs-ny-teknik-laddar-en-elbil-pa-nagra-sekunder
Maybe that is a solution in the future for optimizing electrical car. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MistySpring said:

This article talks about research that's showing a possible new material to be used instead of lithium batteries. It seems as if  it is less detrimental to the environment to make compared to lithium batteries: http://www.mestmotor.se/recharge/artiklar/nyheter/20161206/superbatterier-kanske-inte-behovs-ny-teknik-laddar-en-elbil-pa-nagra-sekunder
Maybe that is a solution in the future for optimizing electrical car. 

There are many alternatives, but the problem usually lies in supply and demand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its true that right now, they probably aren't that great...after all, the electricity they run on is still muchly produced using fossil fuels anyway. Given greater marketability and development, they'd probably become more efficient and less toxic, as technology usually does.

 

That said, the issue is less with technology and more with wasteful usage of it. I contribute by flat out not having a car, and walking anywhere that I can get to within two hours on foot. I have a backpack and a rolly cart and a wagon...I can do everything I need for daily living on foot. Meanwhile one of my room mates will hop in the car to go up to the corner store...a five minute walk. Some people go way farther than even me...living 'waste free' lives, rearranging their lifestyles to have everything be in reusable packaging, composting food waste like peals and shells, and recycling worn out or broken household items like clothes and gadgets. Its more work, yes...but these people don't really give up modern conveniences, they just use them more wisely and make less of an impact on the environment because of it. If this trend caught on, and MOST people were walking everywhere and not buying stuff with disposable packaging, the world would see a drastic shift. Companies would stop MAKING disposables, because it wouldn't be making money. Cars would still be useful for long drives, but using them 30% of the time they're used for now would mean 70% less pollution from them. Recycling as much as possible would mean fewer landfills, and less need to gather fresh materials from the earth. It CAN be done...but the solution lies in making changes in our own lifestyles to use our technology more efficiently, and trying to convince others around us to do the same.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the 'source' what else would you expect? 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

 

Comments below the article say that the calculations are suspect. Another headline states that there haven't been any cases of earth tremors as the result of fracking - not how the people in the affected areas see it.

 

Daily CO2 readings have been taken at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii for over 50 years and is the longest continuous record in the world. There has been a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 over that time with a corresponding increase in global temperatures. 

 

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

 

As a side note, last month more than 50% of electricity fed into the National Grid (in the UK) was from renewables. 

 

 

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scottthespy said:

Its true that right now, they probably aren't that great...after all, the electricity they run on is still muchly produced using fossil fuels anyway. Given greater marketability and development, they'd probably become more efficient and less toxic, as technology usually does.

 

That said, the issue is less with technology and more with wasteful usage of it. I contribute by flat out not having a car, and walking anywhere that I can get to within two hours on foot. I have a backpack and a rolly cart and a wagon...I can do everything I need for daily living on foot. Meanwhile one of my room mates will hop in the car to go up to the corner store...a five minute walk. Some people go way farther than even me...living 'waste free' lives, rearranging their lifestyles to have everything be in reusable packaging, composting food waste like peals and shells, and recycling worn out or broken household items like clothes and gadgets. Its more work, yes...but these people don't really give up modern conveniences, they just use them more wisely and make less of an impact on the environment because of it. If this trend caught on, and MOST people were walking everywhere and not buying stuff with disposable packaging, the world would see a drastic shift. Companies would stop MAKING disposables, because it wouldn't be making money. Cars would still be useful for long drives, but using them 30% of the time they're used for now would mean 70% less pollution from them. Recycling as much as possible would mean fewer landfills, and less need to gather fresh materials from the earth. It CAN be done...but the solution lies in making changes in our own lifestyles to use our technology more efficiently, and trying to convince others around us to do the same.

I believe the government should supply free recycling, included with trash disposal. It would be an investment they can break even on. I can't afford to do it in a non-recycle state. I want recycling to be like oregon etc.

 

I contribute by owning a Prius, buying organic, and usually eating non-processes foods. I walk places too, and don't drive anywhere other than work usually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tanwen said:

Given the 'source' what else would you expect? 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

 

Comments below the article say that the calculations are suspect. Another headline states that there haven't been any cases of earth tremors as the result of fracking - not how the people in the affected areas see it.

 

Daily CO2 readings have been taken at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii for over 50 years and is the longest continuous record in the world. There has been a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 over that time with a corresponding increase in global temperatures. 

 

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

 

As a side note, last month more than 50% of electricity fed into the National Grid (in the UK) was from renewables. 

 

 

 

 

I included that, because the original source is in Swedish.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The researchers did not study individual brand batteries, how these were produced, or the electricity mix they use." 

 

Okay. 

 

No, wait it gets better: "The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used in the battery factory consists of more than half of the fossil fuels. In Sweden, the power production is mainly of fossil-nuclear and hydropower why lower emissions had been achieved." 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

I believe the government should supply free recycling, included with trash disposal. It would be an investment they can break even on. I can't afford to do it in a non-recycle state like oregon etc.

 

I contribute by owning a Prius, buying organic, and usually eating non-processes foods. I walk places too, and don't drive anywhere other than work usually. 

Then you are part of the solution. Some recycling can be done without a recycle center, though I agree that it should be free. Where I live it is...though you have to bring it in to the center yourself. But you can recycle old ratty fabrics by cutting them up and making new stuff like patchwork blankets or washing up cloths, and food waste can be used in a redworm compost (if you're hardcore),  if you have a firepit/place you can save up cardboard and paper waste to start fires, and if you have kids cans and boxes and toilet paper roles can all be used to do crafts and make interesting toys. I had a friend who's favorite toy growing up was this giant castle built out of like a hundred toilet paper roles...it had a working drawbridge, people, towers...it was awesome. Hot glue and paint, and it was fun to both build AND play with. There are ways, it all depends how much time and effort you have to put into it. No shame to any one who's putting some effort in...not every one has the free time to go whole hog and do a zero trash lifestyle. But if everyone lived like you do, there'd be so much less pollution. Every effort counts, every effort makes a difference.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, the concept of "ethical consumerism" which is what many people above are describing, a very very passive version of boycotting movements, has been tried as an effort to somehow make companies start selling things which are more environmentally friendly and to produce less waste, and has failed consistently. The reason for this is that, if a company can reduce the amount of money they put into production, by using low-wage workers in countries whose only choice is to agree to long hours, colluding with other companies to ensure their consumers have no other option except to buy products which would go against their principals, and making it so hard and time-consuming for them to access the information on how much the product contributes to climate change that only the most wealthy and saintly of us could consider it feasible, and then not having to put in the effort to look for alternative sources of energy, hiring researchers to find better materials to use, or having to be more efficient in where they store their products and how far they must be shipped so they don't have to invest considerably in chemicals to preserve food products, they get more money. MONEY. That's all they care about. Not their consumers. So no matter how we boycott in the current system, while the incentive is there, they will continue to destroy our planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way I both plan to never drive a car, and would also like to work in a country in the world sometime in the future which uses mostly renewable energy, wherever it is, the kicker of this bit is that most people don't seem to realise how much "developing world" countries actually do to move towards that, so I'll probably just move somewhere like Uruguay(it runs off of majority renewable energy, and also supplies around a quarter of Brazil's energy requirements through a single dam), and at the same time as this is not exactly my field, I feel obliged to apply my maths degree in something particularly useful and this is the first thing which comes to mind, even if it will require considerable retraining. I also want to do what I can to work towards an anarcho-communist society, which in my case will probably be quite passive: I'd like to help others to set up workers' cooperatives and organise unions/carry out strikes when workers' rights are being threatened, and I'd also like to stay involved in other kinds of activism. Wouldn't mind a bit of anti-fascist work as well though. I have no idea where my life is going to  go, who I'll meet, where I'll live, which language I'll speak, but I've always had excessive ambitions so I'm cool with that.

Just so long as I don't become a banker. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

Basically, the concept of "ethical consumerism" which is what many people above are describing, a very very passive version of boycotting movements, has been tried as an effort to somehow make companies start selling things which are more environmentally friendly and to produce less waste, and has failed consistently. The reason for this is that, if a company can reduce the amount of money they put into production, by using low-wage workers in countries whose only choice is to agree to long hours, colluding with other companies to ensure their consumers have no other option except to buy products which would go against their principals, and making it so hard and time-consuming for them to access the information on how much the product contributes to climate change that only the most wealthy and saintly of us could consider it feasible, and then not having to put in the effort to look for alternative sources of energy, hiring researchers to find better materials to use, or having to be more efficient in where they store their products and how far they must be shipped so they don't have to invest considerably in chemicals to preserve food products, they get more money. MONEY. That's all they care about. Not their consumers. So no matter how we boycott in the current system, while the incentive is there, they will continue to destroy our planet.

You should not operate under the assumption everyone wants to live green/involved life etc. Forcing everyone into that is also bad. Some people like consuming, money, and cars etc. Who are you to tell them how to live your life? Even if you think they should, because X. Doesn't give you the moral authority or right to dictate how one lives.

 

So the only option is to do the best one can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maou-sama said:

You should not operate under the assumption everyone wants to live green/involved life etc. Forcing everyone into that is also bad. Some people like consuming, money, and cars etc. Who are you to tell them how to live your life? Even if you think they should, because X. Doesn't give you the moral authority or right to dictate how one lives.

 

So the only option is to do the best one can. 

This seems like you are one of those who advocate for the principle of voluntary exchange-the consumer wants to buy, and the seller wants to sell, so everything's fine and freedom is upheld.

However that misses the fact that capitalism is upheld by certain kinds of property which historically has been called private property. The thing which distinguishes private property from other kinds of property, is that it is owned by a minority of people, but is a necessity  of life for a majority of people. So you can have a dozen billionaires controlling all media production in the UK, and a company which owns lakes and is run by a dozen or so board members, or an industrial scale farm. At this point, what anti-capitalists maintain, is that this cannot be a voluntary exchange, or at least it isn't free, because the person who is buying is in the majority, they are forced to go to the owner who controls something which they need to survive, and as this is a necessity, the person is likely to agree to most terms which the owner sets. They can set their price as high as they like, but they limit it because they know they are still the majority, and if provoked enough, those who have to buy from them could revolt. The simple fact is that those who actually do the work which this company is providing are also low wage workers, because the people who are paid more are generally those who manage other people. There is a level of hierarchy which may be necessary in many things, but there's also a reason why people don't sign up to be a scientist in order to become a billionaire: because we don't live in a system which rewards the necessary jobs, we live in one focused on distributing resources to a minority. So once you go beyond this level of hierarchy in any company, and you WILL go beyond it, those being paid are giving themselves arbitrary amounts of money, bonuses you name it, without actually contributing, they simply happen to own the means of production. Does the person who helps filter water for housing own any of the water themselves? Probably not, and it's certainly not something which comes naturally as a result of working in a water company.

There is little point in me ranting further though. To understand these things I recommend a number of writers, economists, etc. I'm not a huge fan of Marx because I don't believe in vanguardism, but Proudhon, Godwin, Kropotkin, Bakhunin are all good for the classics, there's a tonne in the anarchist library to look at for free, and for Youtube videos there's Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges especially but I kind of still appreciate Richard Wolff. The thing is I'm just trying to write about their ideas myself, I'm just not in the frame of mind for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

This seems like you are one of those who advocate for the principle of voluntary exchange-the consumer wants to buy, and the seller wants to sell, so everything's fine and freedom is upheld.

However that misses the fact that capitalism is upheld by certain kinds of property which historically has been called private property. The thing which distinguishes private property from other kinds of property, is that it is owned by a minority of people, but is a necessity  of life for a majority of people. So you can have a dozen billionaires controlling all media production in the UK, and a company which owns lakes and is run by a dozen or so board members, or an industrial scale farm. At this point, what anti-capitalists maintain, is that this cannot be a voluntary exchange, or at least it isn't free, because the person who is buying is in the majority, they are forced to go to the owner who controls something which they need to survive, and as this is a necessity, the person is likely to agree to most terms which the owner sets. They can set their price as high as they like, but they limit it because they know they are still the majority, and if provoked enough, those who have to buy from them could revolt. The simple fact is that those who actually do the work which this company is providing are also low wage workers, because the people who are paid more are generally those who manage other people. There is a level of hierarchy which may be necessary in many things, but there's also a reason why people don't sign up to be a scientist in order to become a billionaire: because we don't live in a system which rewards the necessary jobs, we live in one focused on distributing resources to a minority. So once you go beyond this level of hierarchy in any company, and you WILL go beyond it, those being paid are giving themselves arbitrary amounts of money, bonuses you name it, without actually contributing, they simply happen to own the means of production. Does the person who helps filter water for housing own any of the water themselves? Probably not, and it's certainly not something which comes naturally as a result of working in a water company.

There is little point in me ranting further though. To understand these things I recommend a number of writers, economists, etc. I'm not a huge fan of Marx because I don't believe in vanguardism, but Proudhon, Godwin, Kropotkin, Bakhunin are all good for the classics, there's a tonne in the anarchist library to look at for free, and for Youtube videos there's Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges especially but I kind of still appreciate Richard Wolff. The thing is I'm just trying to write about their ideas myself, I'm just not in the frame of mind for it.

You think common ownership of property is a solution to modern society problems? It may work on a village scale, but it cannot work on a modern society scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never gotten why people think electric cars are "green," like you said, the batteries are extremely wasteful and the electricity still comes from a major polluter, coal, instead of gas, I'm not really seeing the difference.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maou-sama said:

You think common ownership of property is a solution to modern society problems? It may work on a village scale, but it cannot work on a modern society scale.

It is necessary, the trouble is it's the complete opposite to what we've been convinced we should think. Anyway, I should point out that in the past, many societies have operated that way. For example I dug up a few articles for another thread to show that there were many empires and smaller societies in Africa pre-colonialism which operated with elected chiefs in relatively loose systems, common ownership of land(the idea of buying and selling it was bizarre to them), without fixed geographical borders and such. Much of the enlightenment in Europe also happened with federalised systems and no states and was similarly an example of communalism, however that was ruined when people began to encounter and war against other cities.

But honestly. Think about how this would feel just within your friendship group: every time you ask them for help, they  charge you for it. Is there really anything natural in the way in which we live now? Because of this, I don't think it's down to me to prove that we should live in a community and distribute jobs concerning things like water, electricity and agriculture between each other according to the ability to do it. Additionally, not requiring a state centralised education system  would allow the way communities educated each other in things like science to be customised according to what the students in that area really needed, wanted to do etc. and because there wouldn't be a requirement to work in order to feed, house oneself etc people would be free to seek out education in the areas they were interested in without worrying about money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

It is necessary, the trouble is it's the complete opposite to what we've been convinced we should think. Anyway, I should point out that in the past, many societies have operated that way. For example I dug up a few articles for another thread to show that there were many empires and smaller societies in Africa pre-colonialism which operated with elected chiefs in relatively loose systems, common ownership of land(the idea of buying and selling it was bizarre to them), without fixed geographical borders and such. Much of the enlightenment in Europe also happened with federalised systems and no states and was similarly an example of communalism, however that was ruined when people began to encounter and war against other cities.

But honestly. Think about how this would feel just within your friendship group: every time you ask them for help, they  charge you for it. Is there really anything natural in the way in which we live now? Because of this, I don't think it's down to me to prove that we should live in a community and distribute jobs concerning things like water, electricity and agriculture between each other according to the ability to do it. Additionally, not requiring a state centralised education system  would allow the way communities educated each other in things like science to be customised according to what the students in that area really needed, wanted to do etc. and because there wouldn't be a requirement to work in order to feed, house oneself etc people would be free to seek out education in the areas they were interested in without worrying about money.

Pre-colonial African societies didnt have electricity and iphones. All that bullshit can't happen in modern society. It's not even comparable. You're better off nuking everything and starting fresh. How would you even begin to impliment something like that, while continue to progress as a nation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the future I see the biggest problem with battery power being finding the raw materials to make batteries. In thirty years there could easily by a billion plus zero tailpipe emissions vehicles globally. A battery pack weighs 100-300Kg, so that is an easy 100 million tonnes of material. Yet the precious metals needed to make batteries are a finite resource. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

In the future I see the biggest problem with battery power being finding the raw materials to make batteries. In thirty years there could easily by a billion plus zero tailpipe emissions vehicles globally. A battery pack weighs 100-300Kg, so that is an easy 100 million tonnes of material. Yet the precious metals needed to make batteries are a finite resource. 

This is why keeping all options open, reduces the amount of resources needed in the long run. Forceing people into one resource is not only bad for the economy, its bad on resource consumption. 

 

Once again, green "solutions" are a scam. It can also create the biggest monopoly ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well 2 years for most electrical cars and 8 years for the BIGGEST Tesla batteries. Even if thats true it is better for the enviornment - obviously. Much less local pollution, and afterall most cars are driving for a longer time than 2 years or even 8 years. And this is in Sweden where enviormental regulations are much stricter than in i.e USA - especially if Trump get his will.

 

It's honestly like saying airbags aren't safe as you may get some bruises or break some bones. True. But you will get severe damages or death without it. 

 

Also the article (the Swedish one) is operating under the condition the factories are powered by fossil fuel. However, most of them is powered by renewable energy. BMW i3 is 100% made from clean energy. Then multiple it with the current green industrial revolution where it is more effecient in many cases to employ them, and the arguments fall.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cleanliness of electric vehicles (EVs) is closely tied to the cleanliness of power production. In the study you linked, they mention that "the calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used in the battery factory consists of more than half of the fossil fuels." That might not be an accurate representation of the typical power grid, and if so, the assumption will significantly affect the results.

 

Let's look at the US, for example. According to this study (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2012), 17% of Americans live in what they've classified as the dirtiest electricity grids, where they found that a typical EV is similar to the best conventional gasoline vehicle (GV) and some hybrids (31-40 mpg equivalent). They do conclude that the best hybrid will be cleaner than a typical EV here. But once you move to cleaner electricity grids the story is a lot more in favour of EVs. 38% live in better areas where an EV has the global warming emission equivalent of a 41-50 mpg GV, and is better than the best hybrid. And 45% of Americans live in areas with the cleanest electricity grids, where EVs are the hands-down winners, emitting less than a 50 mpg vehicle - and in the absolute cleanest areas (e.g. California, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska) this gets up to 70 mpg. Their bottom line is that "there are no areas of the country where EVs have higher global warming emissions than the average new GV." And as grids get cleaner and cleaner, moving away from coal and natural gas, EVs are only going to get better.

 

This study (Electric Power Research Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council, 2015) concluded EV's have 54% lower lifetime carbon pollution than a comparable conventional vehicle (this actually includes battery manufacturing emissions). Extending to 2050 they estimate this could be as low as 59-71%, depending on the electricity grid by that time.

 

When it comes to the batteries after their EV life is over, most can be recycled. Lithium ion batteries, for instance, contain a valuable materials that can be re-used well after the EV. And as technology improves, battery management will become less of a problem.

 

Electric vehicles aren't perfect, but as technology improves and power production (hopefully) gets cleaner, I think they're definitely going to be good for combating greenhouse gas emissions. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A society based on democracy and freedom is currently happening in Syria, in particular the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria  which is one of the independent forces fighting against ISIS and also opposed to Assad. Although it faces massive odds, I really want it to succeed. Also in the past Spain was operated on the basis of anarcho-syndicalism pretty much, production was run through industry and workers owned the factories they worked in, while this system worked in Catalonia, Andalusia and such without state or centralised means of organising. When these possibilities emerge, capitalists and fascists unite to crush the democratic movements and the people within them are massacred, and that is really the greatest opposition facing such movements. But they would be far less wasteful, as it is only in the interest of profit that the employer encourages their employees to produce such large numbers of products.

I don't really believe the question is whether such a society can happen in an industrialised world, the question is whether humanity can make it happen. And if it can't, well I just think that would speak to the uncivilised nature of it as a species. Since I believe most of the meaning of my life would be to go against this possibility and embrace a more fulfilling way of life though, I'm not going to pay attention to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I may be a maths student but I refuse to participate in the numbers game for the simple reason that you are comparing technologies which will still take decades to move off of non-renewable energy sources. This article explains, as much as such a liberal(pretty much meaning centre-right authoritarian) media outlet can, the urgency of climate change in the present day. We need to get it down to zero if we are to prevent the temperatures from going up for centuries.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/15/climate-urgency-weve-locked-in-more-global-warming-than-people-realize

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how much co2 is produced in supplying a conventional car with eight years worth of gasoline? well, actually less than eight years because I bet you haven't added in the production cost of conventional vehicles. and just for fun we could also put the cost of producing the engine oil into the mix. but I'm guessing you aren't looking for numbers that tell the whole story... also: fun fact: a prius also has a big ol lithium battery. oh, also also: I agree that the battery technology should be improved. how do we encourage that in a capitalist society?

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I forgot to add my last point:

 

You also need to take into account that a fuel driven car take Co2 to produce. The Swedish article did not take that into account. 

 

So if a car us around for 20 years, who id the most clean? After 8 years for the most polluting electrical car it don't pollute anymore according to those figures. To then be fair we need to take in the most polluting fuel cars.

 

So then we have a SUV or pickup. With the pollution from production and 20 years on the road, is it the generic pickup truck who pollute or the Tesla X?

 

Even then the "scam" that is clean energy and "monopoly" (last time I checked there is no monopoly) is already making its way into normal cars and hybrid cars making them pollute way less than they used to. But even then electrical cars and hydrogen cars (if the latter get out in earnest) is a far more clean alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe we could live in a society where work wasn't both necessary to maintain our ability to survive, house and feed ourselves and didn't necessarily make employment scarce enough to drive us into unequal agreements with employers looking to exploit us for profit, which so happened to require us to all cram into small overpopulated polluting towns while driving every day to cover the distance to our difficult to find jobs, or even worse, multiple part time jobs. I'm pretty sure if we didn't have to travel to another town to work for money every day we could live productive lives without taking cars everywhere we went. This is definitely my main objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0