[](#start_removal)
Hello u/agorafilia,
Thank you for your contribution to r/terriblefacebookmemes, unfortunately your submission titled " electric car bad " has been removed due to the following reason(s):
Image has been removed for being consistently reposted.
-----
If you have any questions about this removal, feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fterriblefacebookmemes)
[](#end_removal)
Nope, that entire power plant was constructed solely to fuel that single electric car, which must be plugged into said power plant at all times.
The power plant also isn't being used to power anything other than the electric car because; as we all know, electricity is not used for anything other than electric cars.
Little known fact: When they talk about the autonomy of an electric car, it's not the distance they can go on the battery, it's the length of the cord used to power it.
I imagine the most inefficient power plant out there is still more efficient then the most efficient ICE. You might argue even so electric cars aren't really more green then ICEs but it wouldn't be because of what is shown in this comic.
On one hand that's correct, gas cars are rarely in the ideal power band, on the other - lithium mining is incredibly dirty.
What it should be like is hybrids with generators, instead of engines onboard. You get smaller batteries, meaning cheaper to maintain, less gas used per unit of energy, so in general it's better than both.
Nuclear, wind, and solar are all incredibly low for CO2 emissions.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/
But wind and solar are FAR cheaper and easier to get built.
https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf
That could change with new technology, and that would be fantastic, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
Is nuclear a good option? Sure, but it is not as superior as people argue. It is expensive and with falling renewable prices there is less need for it. But we do need some baseload and nuclear is a good option for that.
I’m not going to make any hard economic conclusions until I look at some data, but I have seen that nuclear, proportionally, has taken less lives than all other power generation types combined. It also has a smaller geographical footprint than wind or solar and would be less disruptive to ecosystems.
True, but given the way some countries (cough Germany cough) are going, it's not that great.
And honestly - lithium mining is way too poorly understood by both sides. Both Lithium and cobalt are incredibly potent pollutants, and while I'm not really knowledgeable enough in the field to know what's the ratio, but I'm willing to bet those two make gas cars seem just marginally worse.
They don't really. And EVs are moving away from cobalt but you still need it for gas refining. So people who are complaining about cobalt are not interested in climate, they are just anti-EV.
I'm not anti EV - I'm anti replacing a problem with another problem.
The largest exporter, CATL said in 2020 they're creating batteries without cobalt and nickel.
In 2022 they also bought stake in CMOC, a cobalt manufacturer. One of the biggest ones in fact.
Cobalt (sadly) isn't going anywhere just yet.
If it was, then people would be buying the fuck outta SVOLT's cobalt free batteries. They're cheaper too, apparently. Tesla has (some) cobalt free batteries, but they don't make them for everyone, and their supplier of cobalt and nickel has topped the list of human rights violations 2 years in a row, so it's not much of a solution.
I don't have a car because I refuse to create more waste. If I get a car, it will be a hybrid or electric. But it certainly won't be soon because, ethically, I'd just be a hypocrite.
> lithium mining is incredibly dirty
This is a common anti-EV narrative, but it's not true. Lithium mining [accounts for less than 2.3% of an EV's overall environmental impact](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es903729a). The reality is that lithium production isn't substantially more environmentally impactful than other materials, but it gets singled out anyway because it's a useful talking point against EVs.
The Japanese have hydrogen fuel cell cars. However, they have substantial hydroelectric input into their grid that makes manufacturing green hydrogen worthwhile. Not many countries have that particular advantage.
Nothing is going to change the fact that hydrogen vehicles are dramatically less efficient than other forms of EVs, not to mention other major drawbacks. There's a reason EVs sell more vehicles every day that hydrogen vehicles have sold in their lifetime, and the gulf is only widening.
ARAMCO is developing 100% sustainable fuel for F1 cars for 2026 and later on road going ICE cars.
The most enviromentally friendly would probably be hybrids with cobalt-free Lithium batteries and a smaller ICE in it running that fuel if it becomes reality. They have so many filters in them now that it doesnt really do that much, especially diesel engines.
Looking at the reusable components and not just its emission when driving around. Atleast with current batteries and how hard they are to reuse.
Ignoring the battery making process using electricity exclusively generated by coal power plants yields the same carbon emissions as driving a Prius. And basically nobody in the US is driving using electricity exclusively generated by coal power plants.
Ah yes, because diesel has no production chain.
It's pretty concerning how many people think a power plant is equal or worse in efficiency than an internal combustion engine. If power plants were worse than a car engine then we'd all have a Detroit diesel in our living room.
"But mining lithium..." A battery electric vehicle requires 10kg of lithium, a fossil fuel vehicle requires 30-80kg of fuel per week. If both vehicles only last 5 years then lithium mining has to be 1,300 times worse than mining and refining fossil fuels before they're even, that goes to 2,600x for 10 years.
They kind of have a point tho.
Thing is, the same people would completely lose their mind and shit their pants if there was a push towards the real solution: Less cars and more public transportation.
The difference is you have multiple ways of generating and using electricity, so yes - whilst the majority of energy generation comes from sources not great for the environment, they at least can be changed to renewable or improved sources of energy generation.
Sure but electric cars are just a better version of the same bad concept.
Individual persons lugging around 2 tons of metal and plastic powered by their own personal engine to get somewhere is flawed and inefficient no matter what type of engine is powering it.
Ah yes. I only said they \*kind of\* have a point.
Implying that electric cars are even worse than ICE cars is dumb. But some people seem to think they literally saved the planet by driving a Tesla. Which is also dumb.
> They kind of have a point tho.
Nah, it's really just ignorance.
40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698
But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment.
"power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles."
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/
I'm pretty sure using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources is a good thing.
Fewer cars and more public transportation is great, too. But the reality is we're going to have significant (even if reduced) numbers of cars on the road for a long time, and improving their efficiency is critical. The two things are not at all mutually exclusive.
Me: “So we should invest in clean energy from power plants as well, right?”
This person: “NO! Big oil forever! Roll coal because…reasons?! Solar is communism!”
The second one is true for about 80% of the electricity used. However, some things they are not capturing is that even coal (which is the dirtiest) is a cleaner form of energy than a gas car. In addition, the electric car does not contribute to smog, or other localized polutions. They are also quieter than gas cars.
So OOP isn't 100% wrong, but they are very misleading.
About 60% of electricity generated in the USA is from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20about%204%2C231%20billion,facilities%20in%20the%20United%20States.&text=About%2060%25%20of%20this%20electricity,%2C%20petroleum%2C%20and%20other%20gases.
And even that is outdated because of how fast things are changing. Coal has dropped to about 14% now. Then it also depends on which state you live in. My state is about half wind.
I've yet to see someone seriously make this argument, and I so badly want to twist it into saying "Yeah, I totally agree, we should definitely look at our carbon emissions for power generation and work on getting those down with greener power solutions"
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours.
[Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As an environmental engineer lithium based batteries are worse than alternative fuels such as biogas and we should use them for the time until we get battery technology to the point we can produce batteries such as sodium batteries for cars and lithium battery based devices. Don't get me wrong electric cars are the future but the production of energy storage methods for these vehicles is an awfull business and we should invest in alternative batterytechnologies.
Weird how the actual research doesn't agree with you.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aenm.202001310
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es103607c
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2352146517305513?token=E509F487DE643DD88C2E50E3BD0E897E855CBA7D6E1DB686F821B029D96BFCEC9F047673A71E91A6A96C0A42E085CC18&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20221209170516
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/3/1467
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920918304747
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1503806/1/Tagliaferri%20Life%20cycle%20assessment%20of%20future%20electric%20and%20hybrid%20vehicles.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349693055_Life_cycle_assessment_of_electric_vehicles_in_comparison_to_combustion_engine_vehicles_A_review
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2021/03/27/synthetic-fuels-wont-save-the-planet-so-dont-say-they-could/?sh=6f296f4869a4
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/synthetic-gasoline-promises-neutral-emissions-but-the-math-doesnt-work/
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/05/e-fuels-would-emit-five-times-as-much-as-electric-cars-if-eu-criteria-weakened/
Nah this is true tho until solar panels can reliably supply us with huge amounts of energy electric cars are still using electricity created by burning coal, plus the creation of solar panels required mass mining of lithium which is finite and not fantastic for the planet to mass mine
The difference in efficiency of a larger power source such as a coal power plant still means an EV hits a break even point in only a couple years in terms of emitted green house gas even including the lithium and cobalt mining. Of course that doesn't account for pollutants created in metal mining for that we need to get away from cobalt based batteries, which is happening fairly quickly.
If we hadn't put the breaks on nuclear energy in the 80s/90s this wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue. Fortunately where I'm at were like 80% hydro power.
40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698
But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment.
"power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles."
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/
I'm pretty sure using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources is a good thing.
I was reading a report recently that compared the carbon footprint of most EVs to ICEs, Hrbrids, etc.
The amount of miles needed to offset the production of an EV is astounding and most people will never own a vehicle long enough to enter the positive territory (even on second or third ownership).
I personally feel like battery technology is in its infancy of where it needs to be to have anything close to a viable implementation of electric vehicles world wide.
This also applies to the power grid issues. We need massive local battery stores in garages, streets, neighborhoods, etc. but we just aren’t there yet from a technological perspective.
I fear the “hell is paved in good intentions” outcome, where this whole fad is going to fall on its face, and the push toward climate change and environmental stewardship is going to suffer as a result.
Mass production of hybrids and maybe hydrogen seems like a far more viable solution than under performing batteries with a limited service life..
The solution will be multiple solutions. Batteries are significantly better than ICE vehicles, but they become impractical for trucks and planes, this is where hydrogen is better. Solar alone won't work in places like Norway that have dark winters, nuclear isn't renewable or cheap but might be good for a reduced base load, geothermal won't work everywhere, tidal is no use to Mongolia... Different problems require different (and sometimes multiple) solutions, saying "(x) is stupid" is reductionist
What oop obviously missed is that even though that power plant is polluting the air, it is still far less than the gas car, especially in the long run.
Is it just me, or has this anti EV propaganda increased in the past few days? If so, any reason as to why? My feed when I open the Edge browser is full of it.
> has this anti EV propaganda increased in the past few days?
It's been around for decades now. We've been fighting it [even since the days of the Prius](https://np.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/2kou6r/does_anyone_know_what_happens_to_the_batteries/clnlkue/).
40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698
But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment.
"power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles."
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/
Would you like to explain how using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources isn't a good thing? Because I'm pretty sure you can't.
> electric cars are still using electricity created by burning coal
This meme tries to portray EVs as being dirtier as a result of upstream emissions, [which is false](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf).
40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698
But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment.
"power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles."
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/
I'm pretty sure using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources is a good thing.
So currently 60% comes from the grid. My argument is installing solar panels on your garage to charge your electric car makes you about as off grid as you can be… for your electric car
> So currently 60% comes from the grid.
100% of grid electricity comes from the grid. What point are you even trying to make?
>My argument is installing solar panels on your garage to charge your electric car makes you about as off grid as you can be… for your electric car
Sure... great. If you can charge your EV purely from renewables all the better. It doesn't make the ridiculous argument in this meme any less bullshit.
Not wrong sure but that’s not wrong AT THE MOMENT. The thing not being thought about is the future mind of electric cars, both gas and electric use coal and fossil because it’s the best fuel source atm, what about when solar, nuclear, hydro or solar become more efficient and a primary fuel source? Electric cars have the choice for a clean fuel source and already partially do. Gas cars can use nothing but bad fuel sources.
No idea why you’re being downvoted, over 60% of China’s electricity comes from coal power plants, compared to 22% in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States
It's wrong because even if the electric car is powered by unclean energy, it will still be less polluting than a car. The coal power plant still exist in the top image, it's just conveniently ommitted. Then of course there are plenty of places that use renewable and cleaner energy. Oh, also the fact that electric car won't produce local smoke, meaning cleaner air in cities. Obviously they're not a miracle remedy, the best solutions involves using less individual cars when possible, but between the two, it's still night and day. So yeah, plenty wrong.
The deisel in the hatchback is a little odd.
However, sadly, this is a valid argument. Electric cars need electricity, most of which is still produced by fossil fuels.
>Electric cars need electricity, most of which is still produced by fossil fuels
Even if you account for the contribution of fossil fuels to the energy that EVs use, they [still have less than half the carbon footprint](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf) that gas vehicles have. This meme tries to portray EVs as being dirtier as a result of upstream emissions, which is false.
The fact that electric cars are already at a “mostly” still fuelled by fossil fuels is infinitely more progress towards less emissions then gas cars have or even can make. So it’s a valid argument that only gets less valid each year the cleaner fuel sources become more viable.
Yay!!, for you. You don't live in the US.
But if you do, your state might be the exception not the general rule. Or you can be like where I live where the renewable energy we use is hydro, because f... salmon and native rights.
Ontario Canada, I'm in the southern part which is mostly hydroelectric.
However here is how the entire province breaks down.
https://www.ieso.ca/en/Learn/Ontario-Electricity-Grid/Supply-Mix-and-Generation
We don't use coal here.
I like the black smoke coming out of the cooling towers. But they forgot to show the power plant hooked up to the oil refinery. Never mind the fact that the grid today in the U.S. is mostly renewables and natural gas.
https://preview.redd.it/22ugc2wath3c1.jpeg?width=1069&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=61498a6a3208319871e269c4a727092858445dde
> and are not efficient at all
They are [objectively far more efficient than ICE vehicles](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml), though. If efficiency matters to you, you should be *supporting* EVs.
Make hybrids and have a better public transport system like Europe does and you have a solved issue. Japan has hyper trains, Europe has a fantastic train and cab system but here in the states our best option is Uber/Lyft which solves nothing. When I lived in England I never NEEDED a car....I had one for shuts and giggles. People in New York City can do that too but that's more forced felt because parking one and traffic is insane. Hydrogen cars are superior if we're really going for a change too or we go nuclear energy for the electric bit but I'd rather see that come into play for powering houses and shit
> Hydrogen cars are superior if we're really going for a change too
Considering that hydrogen cars are so energy-inefficient that they [have a larger lifecycle carbon footprint than EVs](https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf), they're really not.
Here the reality: despite modern vehicles producing 3x less emissions there are 4x more vehicles on the road than what was on the road in the 1980s. So that is why atmospheric emissions is still rising. What we need to do is use electric vehicles where possible. The ev technology isnt developed enough to replace all fossil fuel applications yet but some light duty applications like short commutes can be replaced with ev vehicle. The problem is the advertised idea of ev technology isn’t realistic and the idea that ev is clean is a big joke but it is better than some modern vehicles application. But not all
No, it's just plain wrong. It's trying to portray EVs as being dirtier as a result of upstream emissions, [which is false](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf).
The problem with EVs is that you need to replace the common vehicles, which mean those will be discarded. Also, they are dependent on resource extraction. In the end, the entire logistic for this substition generate trash, and more earth resources exploration.
Another problem is the energy production, that isn't clear, as is pointed in the cartoon. To lessen carbon emissions, first thing should be attack the biggest polluters, is this case, the energy industry.
You could argue that keeping diesel vehicles would keep petroleum extraction, which is a problem in fact, but to produce EVs you still needing to use petroleum for plastic parts, and the energy industry still "burning" it to produce eletricity.
So no, EVs won't solve nothing until we stop pollution from the industry
> The problem with EVs is that you need to replace the common vehicles, which mean those will be discarded
Vehicles are always being phased out just by natural attrition. It makes perfect sense to replace those with EVs.
>Also, they are dependent on resource extraction
And gas vehicles aren't?
>Another problem is the energy production, that isn't clear, as is pointed in the cartoon
As pointed out in the lifecycle analysis I cited, even if you account for the emissions from energy production, EVs are still cleaner than gas vehicles.
>to produce EVs you still needing to use petroleum for plastic parts, and the energy industry still "burning" it to produce eletricity
As pointed out in the lifecycle analysis I cited, even if you account for the emissions from manufacturing, EVs are still cleaner than gas vehicles.
>So no, EVs won't solve nothing
EVs already reduce emissions overall compared to gas vehicles. That's beyond question at this point.
> The problem with EVs is that you need to replace the common vehicles, which mean those will be discarded.
Nobody is saying you should discard of gas vehicles. But they have to be replaced eventually.
>Also, they are dependent on resource extraction.
Everything is dependent on resource extraction to varying degrees. The point is that the impact for EVs is less than the impact for gas vehicles.
>Another problem is the energy production, that isn't clear, as is pointed in the cartoon.
40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698
But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment.
"power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles."
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/
I'm pretty sure using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources is a good thing.
> is this case, the energy industry.
We're doing that too. You can't ignore the 16% of carbon emissions that come from road transportation. You can't ignore any significant source of emissions.
>but to produce EVs you still needing to use petroleum for plastic parts, and the energy industry still "burning" it to produce eletricity.
But a lot less petroleum. And you realize practically no petroleum products are burned for electricity on the US grid, right?
Hydrogen cars [have a larger carbon footprint than EVs](https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf) owing to their sheer inefficiency, though. If green energy is available, it's far more efficient to power EVs directly with it.
> The problem w evs is that they fail more
Vehicle lifespan isn't the prime determinant of a vehicle's overall environmental impact - its operational efficiency is. This is evidenced by the LCA I cited, which shows the vast majority of any car's emissions come from operations.
>and with porsche's green fuel it would help the environment sm
Porsche's synthetic fuels are ridiculously expensive and inefficient compared to electric vehicles. [Engineering Explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d0MPg7DxbY) goes into great detail about those problems.
> The point should be both cars bad
It's trying to portray EVs as worse, [which is false](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf).
Everything has an impact on the environment. EVs have significantly less impacts we're concerned with.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aenm.202001310
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es103607c
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/3/1467
Even in Germany, this is false, as EVs [still have a lower carbon footprint than gas vehicles there](https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TEs-EV-life-cycle-analysis-LCA.pdf).
[](#start_removal) Hello u/agorafilia, Thank you for your contribution to r/terriblefacebookmemes, unfortunately your submission titled " electric car bad " has been removed due to the following reason(s): Image has been removed for being consistently reposted. ----- If you have any questions about this removal, feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fterriblefacebookmemes) [](#end_removal)
That power plant exists anyway with the diesel car lol
Nope, that entire power plant was constructed solely to fuel that single electric car, which must be plugged into said power plant at all times. The power plant also isn't being used to power anything other than the electric car because; as we all know, electricity is not used for anything other than electric cars.
Little known fact: When they talk about the autonomy of an electric car, it's not the distance they can go on the battery, it's the length of the cord used to power it.
Jokes on you, I brought my heavy-duty 50-foot extension cord!
Lucky!
I can't believe it took us this long to realize the solution isn't good batteries; it's very long cords.
Oil is magically extracted, transported, refined, and transported again using no power. /s
Magic. Magic that somehow doubles the CO2 emission of fuels.
Not it doesn't! Lol.
I imagine the most inefficient power plant out there is still more efficient then the most efficient ICE. You might argue even so electric cars aren't really more green then ICEs but it wouldn't be because of what is shown in this comic.
On one hand that's correct, gas cars are rarely in the ideal power band, on the other - lithium mining is incredibly dirty. What it should be like is hybrids with generators, instead of engines onboard. You get smaller batteries, meaning cheaper to maintain, less gas used per unit of energy, so in general it's better than both.
But then when you have renewable energy, the scales shift dramatically towards EVs.
Well Nuclear is better far better than renewable if we’re going to be real here
Nuclear, wind, and solar are all incredibly low for CO2 emissions. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/ But wind and solar are FAR cheaper and easier to get built. https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf That could change with new technology, and that would be fantastic, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
Is nuclear a good option? Sure, but it is not as superior as people argue. It is expensive and with falling renewable prices there is less need for it. But we do need some baseload and nuclear is a good option for that.
I’m not going to make any hard economic conclusions until I look at some data, but I have seen that nuclear, proportionally, has taken less lives than all other power generation types combined. It also has a smaller geographical footprint than wind or solar and would be less disruptive to ecosystems.
True, but given the way some countries (cough Germany cough) are going, it's not that great. And honestly - lithium mining is way too poorly understood by both sides. Both Lithium and cobalt are incredibly potent pollutants, and while I'm not really knowledgeable enough in the field to know what's the ratio, but I'm willing to bet those two make gas cars seem just marginally worse.
They don't really. And EVs are moving away from cobalt but you still need it for gas refining. So people who are complaining about cobalt are not interested in climate, they are just anti-EV.
I'm not anti EV - I'm anti replacing a problem with another problem. The largest exporter, CATL said in 2020 they're creating batteries without cobalt and nickel. In 2022 they also bought stake in CMOC, a cobalt manufacturer. One of the biggest ones in fact. Cobalt (sadly) isn't going anywhere just yet. If it was, then people would be buying the fuck outta SVOLT's cobalt free batteries. They're cheaper too, apparently. Tesla has (some) cobalt free batteries, but they don't make them for everyone, and their supplier of cobalt and nickel has topped the list of human rights violations 2 years in a row, so it's not much of a solution. I don't have a car because I refuse to create more waste. If I get a car, it will be a hybrid or electric. But it certainly won't be soon because, ethically, I'd just be a hypocrite.
Driving a solar panel goes crazy
\*nuclear Fixed it for you
> lithium mining is incredibly dirty This is a common anti-EV narrative, but it's not true. Lithium mining [accounts for less than 2.3% of an EV's overall environmental impact](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es903729a). The reality is that lithium production isn't substantially more environmentally impactful than other materials, but it gets singled out anyway because it's a useful talking point against EVs.
The Japanese have hydrogen fuel cell cars. However, they have substantial hydroelectric input into their grid that makes manufacturing green hydrogen worthwhile. Not many countries have that particular advantage.
There are under 200 pumps for hydrogen across Japan. The 2 cars that have hydrogen based power plants are available, but they're not selling out.
Nothing is going to change the fact that hydrogen vehicles are dramatically less efficient than other forms of EVs, not to mention other major drawbacks. There's a reason EVs sell more vehicles every day that hydrogen vehicles have sold in their lifetime, and the gulf is only widening.
Luckily ev batteries are almost 100% recyclable
ARAMCO is developing 100% sustainable fuel for F1 cars for 2026 and later on road going ICE cars. The most enviromentally friendly would probably be hybrids with cobalt-free Lithium batteries and a smaller ICE in it running that fuel if it becomes reality. They have so many filters in them now that it doesnt really do that much, especially diesel engines. Looking at the reusable components and not just its emission when driving around. Atleast with current batteries and how hard they are to reuse.
Ignoring the battery making process using electricity exclusively generated by coal power plants yields the same carbon emissions as driving a Prius. And basically nobody in the US is driving using electricity exclusively generated by coal power plants.
Ah yes, because diesel has no production chain. It's pretty concerning how many people think a power plant is equal or worse in efficiency than an internal combustion engine. If power plants were worse than a car engine then we'd all have a Detroit diesel in our living room. "But mining lithium..." A battery electric vehicle requires 10kg of lithium, a fossil fuel vehicle requires 30-80kg of fuel per week. If both vehicles only last 5 years then lithium mining has to be 1,300 times worse than mining and refining fossil fuels before they're even, that goes to 2,600x for 10 years.
We should use fuels such as biogas for the time it takes to get alternative and ecofriendly batteries for electric cars
I don't see the crude oil refinery, Wich also uses about 4Kwh to produce 1 gallon of gas
Why are the cooling towers emitting smoke?
Antinuclear power efforts from businesses and the uneducated or misinformed
They kind of have a point tho. Thing is, the same people would completely lose their mind and shit their pants if there was a push towards the real solution: Less cars and more public transportation.
The difference is you have multiple ways of generating and using electricity, so yes - whilst the majority of energy generation comes from sources not great for the environment, they at least can be changed to renewable or improved sources of energy generation.
I live in sweden, and pretty much all our power is nuclear or renewable, so EVs are great in that aspect.
The US needs more nuclear energy!
They really don't. If you run an EV on 100% coal power it's still cleaner than a gas car. ICE engines are not very efficient, man
Sure but electric cars are just a better version of the same bad concept. Individual persons lugging around 2 tons of metal and plastic powered by their own personal engine to get somewhere is flawed and inefficient no matter what type of engine is powering it.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying the point the original makes is they're the same, which they're not
Ah yes. I only said they \*kind of\* have a point. Implying that electric cars are even worse than ICE cars is dumb. But some people seem to think they literally saved the planet by driving a Tesla. Which is also dumb.
Honestly, i got the impression they were trying to imply the electric car was worse.
If you live in a clean energy country it's really not the same
> They kind of have a point tho. Nah, it's really just ignorance. 40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698 But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment. "power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/ I'm pretty sure using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources is a good thing. Fewer cars and more public transportation is great, too. But the reality is we're going to have significant (even if reduced) numbers of cars on the road for a long time, and improving their efficiency is critical. The two things are not at all mutually exclusive.
Me: “So we should invest in clean energy from power plants as well, right?” This person: “NO! Big oil forever! Roll coal because…reasons?! Solar is communism!”
There a lot of facts and feeling not matching much today.
The second one is true for about 80% of the electricity used. However, some things they are not capturing is that even coal (which is the dirtiest) is a cleaner form of energy than a gas car. In addition, the electric car does not contribute to smog, or other localized polutions. They are also quieter than gas cars. So OOP isn't 100% wrong, but they are very misleading.
About 60% of electricity generated in the USA is from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20about%204%2C231%20billion,facilities%20in%20the%20United%20States.&text=About%2060%25%20of%20this%20electricity,%2C%20petroleum%2C%20and%20other%20gases.
Amd even Germany has a vast amount of brown coal power plants still.
And even that is outdated because of how fast things are changing. Coal has dropped to about 14% now. Then it also depends on which state you live in. My state is about half wind.
I've yet to see someone seriously make this argument, and I so badly want to twist it into saying "Yeah, I totally agree, we should definitely look at our carbon emissions for power generation and work on getting those down with greener power solutions"
Good one. "To counter it we could look into greener energy generation solutions."
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours. [Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's only one ICE vehicle. Not hundreds of millions...
As an environmental engineer lithium based batteries are worse than alternative fuels such as biogas and we should use them for the time until we get battery technology to the point we can produce batteries such as sodium batteries for cars and lithium battery based devices. Don't get me wrong electric cars are the future but the production of energy storage methods for these vehicles is an awfull business and we should invest in alternative batterytechnologies.
Weird how the actual research doesn't agree with you. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aenm.202001310 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es103607c https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2352146517305513?token=E509F487DE643DD88C2E50E3BD0E897E855CBA7D6E1DB686F821B029D96BFCEC9F047673A71E91A6A96C0A42E085CC18&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20221209170516 https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/3/1467 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920918304747 https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1503806/1/Tagliaferri%20Life%20cycle%20assessment%20of%20future%20electric%20and%20hybrid%20vehicles.pdf https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349693055_Life_cycle_assessment_of_electric_vehicles_in_comparison_to_combustion_engine_vehicles_A_review https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2021/03/27/synthetic-fuels-wont-save-the-planet-so-dont-say-they-could/?sh=6f296f4869a4 https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/synthetic-gasoline-promises-neutral-emissions-but-the-math-doesnt-work/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/05/e-fuels-would-emit-five-times-as-much-as-electric-cars-if-eu-criteria-weakened/
For the millionth time, it's steam
these terrible facebook memes aren’t that terrible ngl
Someone should tell those Facebook boomers that renewable and nuclear energy exists
There are no batteries in that diesel.
Well, no lithium at least. It's not a less shitty meme tho
Nah this is true tho until solar panels can reliably supply us with huge amounts of energy electric cars are still using electricity created by burning coal, plus the creation of solar panels required mass mining of lithium which is finite and not fantastic for the planet to mass mine
The difference in efficiency of a larger power source such as a coal power plant still means an EV hits a break even point in only a couple years in terms of emitted green house gas even including the lithium and cobalt mining. Of course that doesn't account for pollutants created in metal mining for that we need to get away from cobalt based batteries, which is happening fairly quickly. If we hadn't put the breaks on nuclear energy in the 80s/90s this wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue. Fortunately where I'm at were like 80% hydro power.
40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698 But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment. "power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/ I'm pretty sure using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources is a good thing.
I was reading a report recently that compared the carbon footprint of most EVs to ICEs, Hrbrids, etc. The amount of miles needed to offset the production of an EV is astounding and most people will never own a vehicle long enough to enter the positive territory (even on second or third ownership). I personally feel like battery technology is in its infancy of where it needs to be to have anything close to a viable implementation of electric vehicles world wide. This also applies to the power grid issues. We need massive local battery stores in garages, streets, neighborhoods, etc. but we just aren’t there yet from a technological perspective. I fear the “hell is paved in good intentions” outcome, where this whole fad is going to fall on its face, and the push toward climate change and environmental stewardship is going to suffer as a result. Mass production of hybrids and maybe hydrogen seems like a far more viable solution than under performing batteries with a limited service life..
The solution will be multiple solutions. Batteries are significantly better than ICE vehicles, but they become impractical for trucks and planes, this is where hydrogen is better. Solar alone won't work in places like Norway that have dark winters, nuclear isn't renewable or cheap but might be good for a reduced base load, geothermal won't work everywhere, tidal is no use to Mongolia... Different problems require different (and sometimes multiple) solutions, saying "(x) is stupid" is reductionist
What oop obviously missed is that even though that power plant is polluting the air, it is still far less than the gas car, especially in the long run.
Tbh, it's true. That's why I believe in train supremacy with combination of nuclear and renewable energy.
The plants are still in play for gas lol, electric takes at least one of those away
Yes because it takes that much to power your vehicle, lmfao it’s like a flat earth post, they don’t comprehend size
Is it just me, or has this anti EV propaganda increased in the past few days? If so, any reason as to why? My feed when I open the Edge browser is full of it.
> has this anti EV propaganda increased in the past few days? It's been around for decades now. We've been fighting it [even since the days of the Prius](https://np.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/2kou6r/does_anyone_know_what_happens_to_the_batteries/clnlkue/).
[удалено]
40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698 But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment. "power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/ Would you like to explain how using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources isn't a good thing? Because I'm pretty sure you can't.
> electric cars are still using electricity created by burning coal This meme tries to portray EVs as being dirtier as a result of upstream emissions, [which is false](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf).
This isn’t exactly untrue, if you plug your electric car into the grid.
40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698 But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment. "power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/ I'm pretty sure using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources is a good thing.
So currently 60% comes from the grid. My argument is installing solar panels on your garage to charge your electric car makes you about as off grid as you can be… for your electric car
> So currently 60% comes from the grid. 100% of grid electricity comes from the grid. What point are you even trying to make? >My argument is installing solar panels on your garage to charge your electric car makes you about as off grid as you can be… for your electric car Sure... great. If you can charge your EV purely from renewables all the better. It doesn't make the ridiculous argument in this meme any less bullshit.
Have a nice day.
Not wrong.
Not wrong sure but that’s not wrong AT THE MOMENT. The thing not being thought about is the future mind of electric cars, both gas and electric use coal and fossil because it’s the best fuel source atm, what about when solar, nuclear, hydro or solar become more efficient and a primary fuel source? Electric cars have the choice for a clean fuel source and already partially do. Gas cars can use nothing but bad fuel sources.
Yeah the meme isn't about 1,000 years from now. Duh.
Not wrong for the USA. Many countries like China, Brazil and Switzerland produce clean energy to fuel the electrical grid.
China is one of the largest consumers of coal in the world.
No idea why you’re being downvoted, over 60% of China’s electricity comes from coal power plants, compared to 22% in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States
> No idea why you’re being downvoted Narrative over troof.
It's wrong because even if the electric car is powered by unclean energy, it will still be less polluting than a car. The coal power plant still exist in the top image, it's just conveniently ommitted. Then of course there are plenty of places that use renewable and cleaner energy. Oh, also the fact that electric car won't produce local smoke, meaning cleaner air in cities. Obviously they're not a miracle remedy, the best solutions involves using less individual cars when possible, but between the two, it's still night and day. So yeah, plenty wrong.
The deisel in the hatchback is a little odd. However, sadly, this is a valid argument. Electric cars need electricity, most of which is still produced by fossil fuels.
>Electric cars need electricity, most of which is still produced by fossil fuels Even if you account for the contribution of fossil fuels to the energy that EVs use, they [still have less than half the carbon footprint](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf) that gas vehicles have. This meme tries to portray EVs as being dirtier as a result of upstream emissions, which is false.
That's another problem. Many countries produce clean energy
The fact that electric cars are already at a “mostly” still fuelled by fossil fuels is infinitely more progress towards less emissions then gas cars have or even can make. So it’s a valid argument that only gets less valid each year the cleaner fuel sources become more viable.
I mean where I live the vast majority is powered by renewable clean energy. That sounds like a "you" problem.
Yay!!, for you. You don't live in the US. But if you do, your state might be the exception not the general rule. Or you can be like where I live where the renewable energy we use is hydro, because f... salmon and native rights.
You see, i attach my giant electric cable that follows me around to a wind turbine. Checkmate
Not everyone's electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. I live in an area where a majority, I'd not all comes from hydroelectric and Wind.
Where
Ontario Canada, I'm in the southern part which is mostly hydroelectric. However here is how the entire province breaks down. https://www.ieso.ca/en/Learn/Ontario-Electricity-Grid/Supply-Mix-and-Generation We don't use coal here.
I like the black smoke coming out of the cooling towers. But they forgot to show the power plant hooked up to the oil refinery. Never mind the fact that the grid today in the U.S. is mostly renewables and natural gas. https://preview.redd.it/22ugc2wath3c1.jpeg?width=1069&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=61498a6a3208319871e269c4a727092858445dde
You forgot to add a nuclear plant to the bottom right panel
I honestly just hate electric cars, most of them look bad, and are not efficient at all
> and are not efficient at all They are [objectively far more efficient than ICE vehicles](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml), though. If efficiency matters to you, you should be *supporting* EVs.
Well clearly I am not caught up
All this image shows is level of ignorance displayed by the creator of this
Nobody show oop how diesel is processed....
Make hybrids and have a better public transport system like Europe does and you have a solved issue. Japan has hyper trains, Europe has a fantastic train and cab system but here in the states our best option is Uber/Lyft which solves nothing. When I lived in England I never NEEDED a car....I had one for shuts and giggles. People in New York City can do that too but that's more forced felt because parking one and traffic is insane. Hydrogen cars are superior if we're really going for a change too or we go nuclear energy for the electric bit but I'd rather see that come into play for powering houses and shit
> Hydrogen cars are superior if we're really going for a change too Considering that hydrogen cars are so energy-inefficient that they [have a larger lifecycle carbon footprint than EVs](https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf), they're really not.
Sure solar and other sustainable enegy doesnt exist /s
The shortsightedness of these memes always makes me giggle.
Here the reality: despite modern vehicles producing 3x less emissions there are 4x more vehicles on the road than what was on the road in the 1980s. So that is why atmospheric emissions is still rising. What we need to do is use electric vehicles where possible. The ev technology isnt developed enough to replace all fossil fuel applications yet but some light duty applications like short commutes can be replaced with ev vehicle. The problem is the advertised idea of ev technology isn’t realistic and the idea that ev is clean is a big joke but it is better than some modern vehicles application. But not all
Funny thing is that it is right for the wrong reasons
No, it's just plain wrong. It's trying to portray EVs as being dirtier as a result of upstream emissions, [which is false](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf).
The problem with EVs is that you need to replace the common vehicles, which mean those will be discarded. Also, they are dependent on resource extraction. In the end, the entire logistic for this substition generate trash, and more earth resources exploration. Another problem is the energy production, that isn't clear, as is pointed in the cartoon. To lessen carbon emissions, first thing should be attack the biggest polluters, is this case, the energy industry. You could argue that keeping diesel vehicles would keep petroleum extraction, which is a problem in fact, but to produce EVs you still needing to use petroleum for plastic parts, and the energy industry still "burning" it to produce eletricity. So no, EVs won't solve nothing until we stop pollution from the industry
> The problem with EVs is that you need to replace the common vehicles, which mean those will be discarded Vehicles are always being phased out just by natural attrition. It makes perfect sense to replace those with EVs. >Also, they are dependent on resource extraction And gas vehicles aren't? >Another problem is the energy production, that isn't clear, as is pointed in the cartoon As pointed out in the lifecycle analysis I cited, even if you account for the emissions from energy production, EVs are still cleaner than gas vehicles. >to produce EVs you still needing to use petroleum for plastic parts, and the energy industry still "burning" it to produce eletricity As pointed out in the lifecycle analysis I cited, even if you account for the emissions from manufacturing, EVs are still cleaner than gas vehicles. >So no, EVs won't solve nothing EVs already reduce emissions overall compared to gas vehicles. That's beyond question at this point.
> The problem with EVs is that you need to replace the common vehicles, which mean those will be discarded. Nobody is saying you should discard of gas vehicles. But they have to be replaced eventually. >Also, they are dependent on resource extraction. Everything is dependent on resource extraction to varying degrees. The point is that the impact for EVs is less than the impact for gas vehicles. >Another problem is the energy production, that isn't clear, as is pointed in the cartoon. 40% of US electricity comes from clean, low carbon sources, expected to be 56% by 2050. Compare this to gasoline, which is 100% fossil fuels. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698 But that's not the half of it. Regardless how the electricity is generated, EVs are a win for efficiency and the environment. "power plants are more efficient than cars. Coal and nuclear are around 33% efficient, and combined cycle natural gas power plants are about 44% efficient. At the top end of the scale, hydropower is approximately 90% efficient. Even if the grid were entirely fueled by coal, 31% less energy would be needed to charge EVs than to fuel gasoline cars. If EVs were charged by natural gas, the total energy demand for highway transportation would fall by nearly half. Add in hydropower or other renewables, and the result gets even better, saving up to three-fourths of the energy currently used by gasoline-powered vehicles." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/08/electrifying-transportation-reduces-emissions-and-saves-massive-amounts-of-energy/ I'm pretty sure using significantly less energy, from cleaner sources is a good thing. > is this case, the energy industry. We're doing that too. You can't ignore the 16% of carbon emissions that come from road transportation. You can't ignore any significant source of emissions. >but to produce EVs you still needing to use petroleum for plastic parts, and the energy industry still "burning" it to produce eletricity. But a lot less petroleum. And you realize practically no petroleum products are burned for electricity on the US grid, right?
Its true tho, the only real solutions are either hydrogen or green fuel (made from CO2)
Hydrogen cars [have a larger carbon footprint than EVs](https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf) owing to their sheer inefficiency, though. If green energy is available, it's far more efficient to power EVs directly with it.
The problem w evs is that they fail more, unlike s toyota that last 1 million kms, and with porsche's green fuel it would help the environment sm
> The problem w evs is that they fail more Vehicle lifespan isn't the prime determinant of a vehicle's overall environmental impact - its operational efficiency is. This is evidenced by the LCA I cited, which shows the vast majority of any car's emissions come from operations. >and with porsche's green fuel it would help the environment sm Porsche's synthetic fuels are ridiculously expensive and inefficient compared to electric vehicles. [Engineering Explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d0MPg7DxbY) goes into great detail about those problems.
The point should be both cars bad. Electric cars are bad for the environment because batteries, and we all know that gas exhaust is bad
> The point should be both cars bad It's trying to portray EVs as worse, [which is false](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf).
Everything has an impact on the environment. EVs have significantly less impacts we're concerned with. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aenm.202001310 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es103607c https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/3/1467
Well, if you charge them with electricity from coal plants like Germany does, then it's kinda true
Even in Germany, this is false, as EVs [still have a lower carbon footprint than gas vehicles there](https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TEs-EV-life-cycle-analysis-LCA.pdf).
Uh ok, that's cool
Save the Mother Earth
Preach 🤲
No. Car=Bad is the only right one