[fsociety999]

Okay, so it is a clickbait title that “disproves” the claim.

The bigger issue, in my opinion, is what about all the energy needed to recharge the batteries? Last I checked, most of that still comes from fossil fuels.

In addition, what about the environmental impact of mining lithium and other minerals to produce the cars? This article goes into that a bit:

https://therevelator.org/ev-batteries-seabed-mining/

I think there is a non-zero chance that when all is said and done, electric vehicles actually are worse for the environment than fuel powered vehicles.

There is also so much we don’t know. I feel like in one way or another, human efforts to “solve” climate change will ultimately be what leads to our extinction. Whether that is trying to send things into space to block out the sun, or mining oceans for rare metals to use to make batteries. Fun fact, the oceans actually suck up a huge amount of carbon dioxide. It would be pretty fitting if human mining efforts at the bottom of the ocean throw that balance entirely out of whack.

This is one of the problems with government mandates related to electric vehicles. All of the metrics they use to measure success are based on emissions while driving, but that is only one small part of the picture.

[BaseballPhysics]

> what about all the energy needed to recharge the batteries? Last I checked, most of that still comes from fossil fuels.

In my part of Canada a full 1/3rd of our electricity comes from renewables. In other places the number is even higher.

Hell, Texas, of all places, produces over a quarter of it's electricity with renewables and another 6% with nuclear:

https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=TX

Renewables are huge and growing every single year as solar and wind become cheaper and cheaper.

And that's ignoring the shift from coal to nat gas in traditional power plants (in fact, where I am, there are no more coal fired plants in operation) which is significantly less carbon intensive, especially when compared to an individual internal combustion engine burning gas or diesel.

Bluntly, you are out of date.

> All of the metrics they use to measure success are based on emissions while driving, but that is only one small part of the picture.

Oh yes, I'm sure you're the only person who's thought of this. Certainly no academics or policy experts have considered your concerns...

[sliken]

Well even assuming 100% fossil fuels, EVs are somewhere around 3x as efficient compared to an internal combustion engine. But most grids world wide have some renewable energy and it's increasing over time. Not to mention solar at the grid, neighborhood, or home level.

So EVs are more efficient in the worst case (100% fossil fuels) and get better from there.

[somewhat_drunk]

You could google instead of assuming, but where's the fun in that, I guess???

The US grid is 20% coal, 40% natural gas, 20% nuclear, and 20% renewables.

Natural gas plants are about twice as efficient (~50%) as a typical gasoline engine (~25%) and burn much more cleanly, producing fewer pollutants across the spectrum for the same amount of energy.

So right off the bat, you know that 80% of the energy going into the typical EV battery in the USA was produced far more efficiently and more cleanly than would burning enough gasoline to produce an equivalent amount of work.

You could also of course simply google "ICE vs BEV emissions" and read a study summary or two. They all generally agree that BEV emissions are much lower than ICE emissions on a lifecycle basis.

Serious question: why did you not do that in the first place?

[fsociety999]

> Natural gas plants are about twice as efficient (~50%) as a typical gasoline engine (~25%) and burn much more cleanly, producing fewer pollutants across the spectrum for the same amount of energy.

I think this is an overly simplified view. That is the main problem I have with all this stuff. It is too easy to repeat the established “scientific consensus” which is all based around everything operating perfectly in a vacuum. In the real world, systems are complex and it is often not nearly as simple. See, for example, this article:

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impacts-natur...

It states

> The drilling and extraction of gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, the primary component of natural gas. Methane is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years

And

> Whether gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the leakage rate, the time frame employed for evaluating global warming potential, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors. One study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer

As far as I’m concerned even if natural gas is “not a fossil fuel” on paper, if it leaks methane in order to extract it, it is no better, and perhaps worse than coal. Let’s say natural gas is only 25% better than coal when all is said and done. That puts us at approximately 50/50 in terms of emissions for the US grid (20 + 0.75 * 40) = 50. At that point, my claim that “most” of the energy still comes from fossil fuels is essentially true when you look at it just in terms of emissions.

Of course, it doesn’t take into account that the energy use in the grid has been shifting towards more renewable sources over time, but the idea that there is some net positive just from switching to electric vehicles, I think is far from a foregone conclusion.

Also, it seems everyone in the replies has latched on to my claim about the energy in the grid, but no one touched on the environmental impact of mining lithium and other metals to produce the batteries which will almost surely be a net negative for the environment.

I am not trying to trash on electric cars here, merely trying to point out that these issues are far more complex than the way they are talked about in the mainstream media, the scientific community, and hacker news.

[somewhat_drunk]

>these issues are far more complex than the way they are talked about

There are complexities to consider, yes. And surprise! They have been considered. All of your concerns have been analyzed ad nauseum and converted into neat little chunks of peer-reviewed literature that's just waiting for your perusal.

Please stop bloviating about contrived nuances emanating from the right wing propaganda machine.

Google and read.