- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t need to click on the article to know it’s at least a metric FUCK TONNE less than burning fossil fuel.
Regardless I always find the argument for fossil fuels over EV hilariously stupid when measuring carbon outputs. Considering that these renewable elements can be recycled over and over unlike one-time fossil fuels…
No they can’t, or have they found a way to 100% recycle Lithium? As far as I know currently they are dependent of mining ever more Lithium to produce new batteries. Nobody really measures the damage done to the earth there, especially when mining happens in remote and/or poor areas.
Even renewable energy needs mined minerals and regular replacement of parts - solar, hydro, wind. All energy has a cost.
No one said it was a zero-sum game. Nothing really is (excluding theory). I’m just gonna leave these here for good news:
The process, which has also been used on material left over from magnet manufacturing that typically goes to waste, can recover 90 to 98 percent of the rare earths, and the material is pure enough to make new magnets, Nlebedim’s team has demonstrated.
Recovering up to 70 percent of lithium from battery waste without corrosive chemicals, high temperatures, and prior sorting of materials being required: This is achieved by a recycling method developed by Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). Mar 30, 2023
Also do we wanna start comparing fossil fuel extraction to metals extraction? It’s kind of a moot point. Especially when we have only about 50 years of accessible oil reserves anyway.
“Batteries == Good” is my takeaway, but if you can be grid-tied I think zero batteries is the most environmentally friendly option. For grid stabilization I imagine even still that that should be left to utility-scaled installations.
Actually, now that I wrote that, this might be true for residential grid-tie vs utility solar too.
The electric car and battery hype in its current form is just an attempt to use the same amount of energy, but now it magically doesn’t cause damage to the planet.
Pushing batteries while we still spend more resources than the planet can regenerate is like hammering a smaller leak into an already sinking boat because it lets out less water than the already existing huge leak which we refuse to fix.
The region I live in is soon to be torn up for lithium mining. Areas already heavily damaged by wildfires and drought. Guess the only way out is by buying a new electric eco SUV and drive away to some beautiful holiday country? /s
The electric car and battery hype in its current form is just an attempt to use the same amount of energy, but now it magically doesn’t cause damage to the planet.
There is nothing magical about it. Producing electricity without emitting CO2 or burning fossil fuel is a proven process.
Oh, the sheer audacity of suggesting that the electric car and battery hype is nothing more than a futile attempt to maintain our energy consumption without causing damage to the planet. Such a statement reeks of ignorance and a lack of understanding of the broader context of transitioning to cleaner energy sources. The false equivalence drawn between electric vehicles (EVs) and traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles is laughable. It is a well-established fact that EVs have lower emissions over their lifetime compared to ICE vehicles, even when accounting for the production and disposal of batteries. To equate the two is to willfully ignore the evidence.
This comment displays a stunning disregard for the ongoing advancements in battery technology, renewable energy, and resource management. These improvements aim to reduce the environmental impact of EVs and their batteries, making them a more sustainable option in the long run. To dismiss these efforts is to turn a blind eye to positive progress.
The misrepresentation of the goal of promoting EVs is nothing short of disingenuous. The push for EVs is not about maintaining the same energy consumption levels without causing damage; it is part of a broader effort to transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources and reduce overall energy consumption.
To suggest otherwise is to distort the truth.
The focus on the individual act of buying an electric vehicle, rather than acknowledging the need for systemic change, is a classic example of missing the forest for the trees.
The transition to electric vehicles is just one aspect of a larger shift towards sustainable practices, including improvements in public transportation, urban planning, and renewable energy infrastructure.
in all honesty this is a deeply misguided attempt to dismiss the potential benefits of electric vehicles and battery technology. It fails to recognize the broader context of the transition to cleaner energy sources and the ongoing advancements in technology that aim to reduce our environmental impact. Instead of offering a constructive critique, they resort to a simplistic and misleading analogy that does little to further the conversation on sustainable transportation solutions.
A lot of expensive words to call me wrong, but I think the real issue is with ‘in their lifetime’. Producing more stuff - even less harmful stuff than we have now - cannot possibly be less harmful than not producing it. It’s a dishonest way of making the accounts. If you buy a new electric vehicle now while your old one lands on the dump you are not protecting the planet by using cleaner technology, you are adding another car to the pile of trash we are destroying our planet with, because you could have perfectly well kept driving your old one.
part of a broader effort to transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources and reduce overall energy consumption.
Reduce energy consumption where? I just don’t see it happen, only a push for more consumerism under the guise of improved eco-friendliness, thanks to an overly optimistic hype around EV and battery tech. A greenwashing article about a revolutionary new battery tech every couple of years or so (never sees the market). All the while in the background, Germany is torn up for lignite to keep up with the rising demand for electric energy, Portugal for lithium to make more batteries, and it still gets hotter every summer. Renewables can’t really keep up with the mega-demand that will come from more EVs on the road. So there will be more nuclear plants, more coal plants, more mega-dams to contain rivers, more landscape destroyed. All so that people in their damned cars can drive to places where the landscape is not yet destroyed, or so the adverts promise.
The push for EVs is a nice trick from the car industry to sell you a completely new line of vehicles full of half-baked tech, first of all. A car used to be a quality product, built to last decades. Now, (for some probably completely innocent reason /s) you are somehow supposed to buy a new model every few years, each more eco-friendly than the last. Look my friend, you cannot produce something from nothing. All these new, eco-friendly battery-powered products they are selling us now are ripped out of the guts of mother earth. Use what you already have for as long as you can, go as local as you can, and don’t fall for the greenwashing hype that you can keep driving without causing damage.
Allow me to address the counter-argument presented, which seems to be rooted in a mixture of oversimplifications, unfounded claims, a failure to recognize the broader context of the transition to cleaner energy sources and a sprinkling of stupidity.
The argument that producing more stuff cannot be less harmful than not producing it is a simplistic view. The “in their lifetime” comparison takes into account the production, use, and disposal of vehicles. It acknowledges that while there is an environmental cost to producing EVs, their overall impact is still lower than that of ICE vehicles. This is not a dishonest accounting, but a comprehensive analysis of the vehicles’ environmental footprint.
The claim that there is no reduction in energy consumption is unfounded. The transition to EVs is accompanied by a shift towards renewable energy sources, which are becoming more prevalent and efficient. This reduces the reliance on fossil fuels and contributes to a decrease in overall energy consumption.
While it is true that resource extraction for batteries and renewable energy infrastructure can have environmental consequences, these impacts must be weighed against the benefits of transitioning away from fossil fuels. The push for EVs and renewable energy is not solely about consumerism; it is a necessary step towards a more sustainable future.
The assertion that renewables cannot keep up with the demand for electric energy is overly pessimistic. Renewable energy capacity is growing rapidly, and technological advancements continue to improve efficiency and reduce costs. The transition to EVs will likely be accompanied by further investments in renewable energy infrastructure, making it more feasible to meet the increased demand.
The claim that the push for EVs is merely a trick by the car industry to sell new vehicles full of half-baked tech is a cynical oversimplification. While there may be some profit-driven motives, the transition to EVs is also driven by government regulations, consumer demand for cleaner transportation, and a genuine desire to reduce the environmental impact of transportation.
The suggestion to use what you already have and go as local as possible is absolutely commendable, but it does not negate the need for systemic change. The push for EVs and renewable energy is not just about greenwashing; it is part of a larger effort to create a more sustainable future. Individual actions, such as driving less and supporting local economies, can absolutely complement these systemic changes. they’re not mutually exclusive by any means.
While I wholeheartedly agree it is essential to be critical of the environmental impact of new technologies, it is equally important to acknowledge the utmost necessity of transitioning away from fossil fuels and the potential benefits of electric vehicles and renewable energy.
Please, I implore you, think a bit harder, I feel you’re so close to getting it.
You cloud your mind with so many words, and most of them would be perfectly fitting for an EV advertising campaign.
Developing ways of storing renewable energy? I’m all for it. But EVs are not equal to renewable energy, and renewable energy is in many cases not as clean as it is claimed to be.
Digging lithium out of the earth (no, lithium is not recyclable so far, after a number of loading cycles the battery is trashed. For example look at this article). Less than 1% of Lithium recycled as of 2021??? And you call that renewable? Lithium is a hype that currently makes shady mining companies very rich, it is NOT eco - please invest in other developments. Private vehicles need to make space for public transport, I’m just as pissed about electric fucking eco SUVs as I am about other cars because it’s a stupid way for a society to solve transport. And this article of the so called MIT Climate Portal keeps peddling the private vehicle as the norm and future when we most urgently need less vehicles on the road.
There is not much left other than profit driven motives in late stage capitalism. Bless your tiny heart if you still believe in any altruistic motive of the car/EV industry.
now whilst this feels like playing chess with a pigeon at this point, let us address the nihilism and scientific misunderstandings presented here…
Ah, the classic tactic of dismissing an argument as mere advertising fluff. But let’s not allow such distractions to cloud the facts.
Conflating EVs with renewable energy is a straw man argument. No one claims they are the same, but EVs charged by renewable energy sources significantly reduce emissions compared to gas vehicles. That’s a fact, not a marketing ploy.
Now, let’s tackle the lithium recycling misconception. Contrary to the claim, lithium-ion batteries can indeed be recycled. While the recycling rate is currently low, it is improving, driven by regulations, consumer awareness, and economic factors. Lithium recovery rates may be lower than other materials, but new processes aim to improve this. Dismissing lithium recycling as nonexistent is simply incorrect.
As for the critique of renewable energy, no one claims it’s perfect. But it is far cleaner than fossil fuels, and its flaws should not be used as an excuse to halt progress. The push for EVs and renewable energy is not a mere capitalist ploy; it’s a necessary step towards a more sustainable future.
Regarding private vehicles, I wholeheartedly agree that public transportation should be prioritized. However, this does not negate the need for cleaner personal transportation options. EVs can coexist with improved public transit systems, and both are essential for reducing emissions.
Lastly, the cynicism about profit-driven motives is understandable, but it’s not the whole story. Government regulations, consumer demand, and genuine concern for the environment also drive the transition to EVs. To dismiss all motives as purely capitalist is to ignore the complexity of the issue.
Let us not be blinded by nihilism or scientific misunderstandings. The transition to EVs and renewable energy is not without challenges, but it is a crucial step towards a more sustainable future. Let us hold companies and regulators accountable, push for better recycling and public transit, and continue to innovate for a cleaner world.
bless your tiny brain for reading this and at least trying to comprehend.
