Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tomytosian 1793 days ago
yeah sure electric is sustainable. check the pictures of where your batteries rare minerals are harvested, check this too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0TtbWfmsaw
1 comments

Check the pictures of where your gas is cracked from crude oil, or of the farming methods used for your meat consumption, or the trees and forests cut down for banana, soy and palm oil plantations.

Mass production never looks sustainable when framed in isolation, but in comparison to the alternative of fracking in tar sands and leaking methane by the galleon those mines aren't so bad.

Your video also misses the point. Firstly, the mix of where that power comes from will depend on where you live. In places where the grid is dirty, of course it's going to be dirty. In other places there are ample amounts of renewables available at many times to be used. There's also the fact that changing the mix of the source of the power is much much easier than getting people to change vehicles. If solar becomes massively widespread on the grid, everyone with an EV immediately benefits from it. If a new ICE is produced then it's not until the old ones are out of circulation that the gains can happen

by your own logic then we should just skip electric and go full on hydrogen. thanks for confirming what I said
>by your own logic then we should just skip electric and go full on hydrogen

This would be true only if hydrogen extraction, transport, storage, and use had no downsides or costs. Instead of playing childish "gotcha" games, why don't you actually articulate a cohesive point about why hydrogen is the best route forward.

you argue that electricity will become clean depending on where I live (pretty much clean for 5% countries on earth that are full nuclear or small countries as of today) which is probably true if everyone goes full electric and in 50 years but yet say I am childish for saying that once infrastructures will be there for hydrogen it will be way cleaner than electric... "a 1,000-pound electric-car battery requires the extraction and processing of some 500,000 pounds of materials. “Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car ‘consumes’ five pounds of earth.” By contrast, an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.", https://ideas4development.org/en/rare-metals-rich-countries-...
> you argue that

That wasn’t me. I actually think that a hybrid solution is the best way to go, with most passenger vehicles going BEV, and heavy transport (trucking, freight, shipping) going FCEV. Your “once infrastructures will be there for hydrogen” is a big “if”. FCEVs are basically useless without extensive infrastructure for your average person. A BEV can be charged in your garage and would be perfectly usable as a commuter car with zero electric vehicle infrastructure.

Maybe “in 50 years” is not really useful for what we need to do now. I can go out today and buy a new BEV to replace my current car and other than the occasional road trip, get 100% of the same functionality. At my house, I am 10 feet away from the nearest fueling station. If I could even find an FCEV to buy, I would be over a thousand miles from the nearest fueling station. Charging stations, fast chargers, super chargers, etc. just augment and add to what every home has for a BEV. An FCEV needs gas stations like an ICE car, and there is a reason that gas stations are never more than a mile away.

For commercial purposes, it is logistically feasible to put in filling stations at specific end points, hubs, or defined distances along a route and make it work. Maybe that builds up infrastructure so that in 50 years, it could be a legitimate alternative to BEVs for average people.

you can do that. not everyone can. try waiting 20minutes in front of a tesla charging dock for each car that is in front of you. it does not scale. try harvesting the needed rare earth to replace all the fuel cars ull drive costs up, eco-systems will fall.