[neovialogistics]

I copied this from a climatologist's twitter last year but can no longer find the source, I suspect they've deleted their account:

> All other things being identical, if an EV made from metals that were processed with green electricity only has one (1) order of magnitude less emissions than a petrol engined vehicle of the same size over the vehicle's lifetime, the equivalent EV where the metals were smelted with coal is one order of magnitude worse.

I don't know if the claim is correct but I hope the industry can do better than that.

[credit_guy]

Nonsense. A ton of steel produced with coal produces about two tons of CO2. If produced from recycled steel, it produces about 0.4 tons, but let’s say 0. So a two ton EV (like the Tesla Model Y) would generate 4 tons more CO2 than a similar ICE vehicle made with “green steel”. That ICE vehicle will generate more than 4 tons of CO2 every single year of its existence.

[photonerd]

“All other things being identical” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting there.

The “cradle to grave” calculations for ICE vs EV (ie, inc manufacture & decommission) are quite stark: even without assuming green electricity EVs have—-at most—-only 32% of their ICE counterparts emissions.

Now 1/3rd doesn’t sound that great, but remember: that’s a worst case scenario for EVs and doesn’t include the long term recycling benefits either.

Not least: 2/3rds less car emissions would be a game changer for air quality & the climate.

[hedora]

A 50% reduction in emissions in the short term is barely enough to stay on track to not destroy civilization in our own lifetimes. We should take the order of magnitude win! (Even if it is “only” really the 70%, from that sibling comment)

Also, carbon capture will eventually exist at scale, and cutting CO2 production by 90% will cut carbon capture costs by 90%z