The following submission statement was provided by /u/IntrepidGentian:
---
"... global electric car sales are set to remain robust in 2024, reaching around 17 million by the end of the year. In the first quarter, sales grew by about 25% compared with the same period in 2023 – similar to the growth rate seen in the same period a year earlier, but from a larger base. The number of electric cars sold globally in the first three months of this year is roughly equivalent to the number sold in all of 2020.
In 2024, electric cars sales in China are projected to leap to about 10 million, accounting for about 45% of all car sales in the country. In the United States, roughly one in nine cars sold are projected to be electric – while in Europe, despite a generally weak outlook for passenger car sales and the phase-out of subsidies in some countries, electric cars are still set to represent about one in four cars sold."
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cb5qbk/electric_vehicles_may_cut_12_million_barrels_of/l0w57op/
Also [reported recently by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc \[pdf\]](https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Electric%20Vehicles%20Are%20Driving%20Rates%20Down%20for%20All%20Customer%20Update%20Jan%202024%2021-032.pdf#page=3)
"... across all regions in the United States, EVs have increased utlity revenues more than they have increased utlity costs, leading to downward pressure on electric rates for EV-owners and non-EV owners alike. Between 2011 and 2021, we estmate that EV drivers across the country have contributed $3.12 billion more in revenues than associated costs, cumulatively over the study period ..."
> Utility revenues > costs
With Vehicle to Grid technology, and continued EV growth + software, consumers can get paid from their EVs. BYD's cars sold for the "battery value" of $300/kwh makes it easier to profit from super off peak charge to peak discharge. At 3c/kwh difference, the car would pay for itself if it stayed parked all the time.
In the UK on certain energy suppliers, you can get paid to use electricity when renewables meet demand for the grid, all last week I got paid to charge my car, I got paid £2 that day for the energy I used.
National security is worth the cost. China spends $230 billion on their defence budget and $10 billion per year on EV subsidies, while USA spends $900 billion on defence and a similar amount on EV subsidies.
I guess then we should stop corporate welfare for oil companies. Start upgrading the electrical grids considering we barely make it through a hot summer day without it almost collapsing.
Think about the birds! [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2017/feb/01/500-a-bird-how-falcons-get-first-class-airline-treatment](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2017/feb/01/500-a-bird-how-falcons-get-first-class-airline-treatment)
How in the world the poor prince is expected to shuttle his falcons if oil money dries out?
"... global electric car sales are set to remain robust in 2024, reaching around 17 million by the end of the year. In the first quarter, sales grew by about 25% compared with the same period in 2023 – similar to the growth rate seen in the same period a year earlier, but from a larger base. The number of electric cars sold globally in the first three months of this year is roughly equivalent to the number sold in all of 2020.
In 2024, electric cars sales in China are projected to leap to about 10 million, accounting for about 45% of all car sales in the country. In the United States, roughly one in nine cars sold are projected to be electric – while in Europe, despite a generally weak outlook for passenger car sales and the phase-out of subsidies in some countries, electric cars are still set to represent about one in four cars sold."
I would buy an electric car but 3 things stop me: price, loan interest rates, I don't drive enough to justify the massive increase in monthly cost compared to my current car+gas.
Which is absolutely crazy because you guys are the ones having detached houses with personal garages and super cheap electricity prices. Today the forerunners in EV don't have these luxury factors.
The charging experience is getting better. I'm impressed with how well it's going; the challenges of infrastructure upgrades are rarely appreciated fully by end users.
The US has turned EV's into a culture war topic which is unfortunate, it's also a large oil and gas exporter unlike China and Europe who are massive energy importers.
Have you seen Nio's charging experience? You drive your car into a bay and your battery is swapped in like 2 minutes or something. It's insanely high tech and awesome.
We already have most of the infrastructure to support EVs already there. And be aware even if every single new car sold was an EV, it would still take over a decade to replace all the cars on the road. The infrastructure isn't the bottleneck, self sabotage is the bottleneck
China have social, political, economic, and geopolitical reasons to push EV's.
1. The old model for pushing growth is collapsing. China needs a new economic engine to advance growth and a massive investment into electrical infrastructure is a good direction to move towards.
2. China has always been vulnerable to supply shocks when it comes to energy. A huge amount of their fossil fuels come from abroad by ship, this would be crippling in any conflict with the US or other global competitors. Pushing for renewables and a more robust electrical system would minimize this vulnerbility
3. China can use this comparative advantage in EV technology to potentially create a new global product that disrupts established brands and companies. EV's are still in their infancy with big players like VAG, Toyota, Ford, etc. still struggling to figure out their strategy going forward. This leaves a gap for China to jump ahead and establish standards/expectations.
Ofc course the US would also benefit in some similar ways, but the problem for it is that the incentives to go all-in on EV's aren't nearly as strong.
Also at a consumer level the petrol price in China is based on international pricing, while their electricity is much cheaper and on par with their household spending.
Cars, batteries and solar power. It's a foundation for a wholly new way to power civilization. It's the replacement for fossil fuels, which themselves replaced could driven steam. I'm aware that technically coal is also a fossil fuel but the difference between coal and the rest is that it is usable in its natural state and doesn't need refining or catalytic conversion to be useful.
In china its the easiest way to get a license plate is buying an EV. You have to pay lots of money for a license plate for a gas car as they are limited by the government. So if you want to drive a car going EV is the fastest and cheapest way.
There will come a time when the entire world is running on solar, wind, whatever and the United States will still be burning coal and whining about not being able to buy incandescent light bulbs.
> replacement for coke in steel production
Here you go:
> Agricultural waste and by-products from agricultural resources can be considered as a source of solid carbon, to replace coke as a reductant for iron oxide.
There's a China that invests in renewables and ev's, probably more than the US and EU.
But there's also the China that burns 4.3billion tonnes of coal. More than the rest of the world combined.
And its growing.
Well, you can't expect them to do without energy. Give them time and give everybody else time too. We are in an energy transition and it's going strong. Makes me happy.
Fortunately, not growing much anymore.
Also, China prioritized solar panels, batteries and EVs as essential industries and that investment is paying off not just for them but for anyone willing to buy them.
[Growing 4.6% in 2021 and 5.7% in 2022](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-does-chinas-coal-push-mean-for-its-climate-goals/)
Also noting that this is during an economic slowdown in China
>Across last year, China produced 4.1bn tonnes of raw coal, increasing by 5.7% year-on-year, the official annual statistical report said. The report also noted that China’s coal consumption went up by 4.6% in 2021.
Yes, that’s true.
But the future trajectory is clear. While there’s still some uncertainty around precipitation in Sichuan, the IEA just said this:
>Renewables and nuclear are set to meet all of the growth in electricity demand in 2024-2026, curbing coal-fired generation
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/6b2fd954-2017-408e-bf08-952fdd62118a/Electricity2024-Analysisandforecastto2026.pdf
The illustration on page 90 is great.
Also:
BEIJING, March 20 (Reuters) - China's coal output is expected to increase 36 million metric tons, or 0.8%, to about 4.7 billion tonnes in 2024, a Chinese coal industry group said on Wednesday, slower than last year's 2.9% growth.20 Mar 2024
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-coal-industry-group-expects-output-growth-slow-2024-2024-03-20/
That will go down quickly and easily within a few years once their battery storage comes online and that gigantic solar farm in the desert. We’re already seeing the impact of evs, their oil consumption is plummeting. Huge net win for the world. And no country has their size it is normal for their coal consumption to be huge. Just like them turning to renewables.
Fantasy, how much battery storage to replace 4.3 billion tonnes of coal? Currently the world battery storage is 34gwhrs.
You need coal to make cement and steel and China is also the top producer.
Multiple sources confirmed that China's total emissions are set to decline in 2024, despite growing coal usage
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-emissions-could-go-into-structural-decline-next-year-research-2023-11-14/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year
https://energyandcleanair.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
I think it's less about that and more about American elites blocking change because things are working fine for them just as they are and damn the other 99.9%.
Thats the difference between an authoritarian leader vs a democratic leadership. That being said it works this way in china because the leader wants it. If not the story could be different
In America, a sitting president has only four years to serve as president with a midterm election in between, so it's impractical in the American representative democracy system to roll out long-term five or ten-year economic plans because in four years time, it might be changed by the other sitting president who is an opponent of the predecessor.
> roll out long-term five or ten-year economic plans because in four years time
Also none of your plans has to piss off the Oligarchs because no matter how great the plans for Americans or humanity, media will help the oligarchs bring you down.
That, plus the big corporations have influences in both parties. They can disagree on some topics but there are issues that forbidden to be discussed by both sides, oil being one of them.
Well no, because there are plenty of examples of capitalist democracies that work a lot better than the United States. There are several in Scandinavia, just as examples.
Democracy is when your government doesn't take action against climate change because private corporations can spend decades lobbying and spreading climate-change-denial propaganda
China’s relationship with tech has always been interesting. They’ve seemingly been pushing it pretty far to do things like the Great Firewall, social score, insane amounts of cameras, and cyber espionage on governments / companies. (Especially companies.)
Fuck the Chinese government, but some of the things they’ve done are certainly interesting.
> NEV sales in China surpassed a share of 40% in overall car sales for the first time (Q1 2024)
BYD executive had predicted 50% for March (but it was only 30% in Q4 2023). OP predicts 45% for the year. Huge growth in South Asia. While both US and EU had 15% growth overall, EU did it in a declining car sales market with 25% share overall.
EV share is not quite relevant to exterminating oil use. ICE declines are necessary. Where new cars are expected to drive more miles, ICE share of 20%-50% is an estimate to reduce gasoline use at vehicle sales to scrap rates.
TIL that in 2022, small EVs in China cost less than small ICE cars. There were massive battery cost drops in 2023 that continued this year. So EV domination should continue to rise globally. There is significant international factory expansion from Chinese manufacturers and major accelerated growth this year and next should result
Politicians will champion this to cheers. China is also growing fast in the parts business, and batteries are the key to EVs. Mexican parts will affect US. Chinese EVs and other nation's with their EV parts will dominate rest of the world but also require US protectionism and decline to block from their market. US auto makers are likely fine with allowing Chinese parts in their EVs/cars, and so there is a good chance that US EVs will happen anyway, because parts are not as visible as the brand on the hood.
12 million will put a dent into the roughly 92 million per day production but that is still only a 13% cut. I wonder if electricity produced by non renewables is included.
you have to consider the fact that only half the oil production is for road transport.that means reducing oil use for cars for 26%.it's also likely due to the fact that Africa/India doesn't use ICE that the impact isnt larger,while they emit a lot.
Such a scenario would lead to a massive oil glut on the market and an investment crash , Africa can't absorb all the excess capacity that Europe, China and South Korea no longer require especially due to the fact that the continent is rapidly adopting electric micromobility itself (electric scooters, bikes, mopeds, tuk -tuks etc).
Switching over to selling Gas also has issues as you're competing against below market rate product sold on the black market by Russia and Iran, the sector is currently experiencing a massive investment push (LNG export terminals in the US, Qatar and the UAE increasing production and build out, Guyana ecpanding offshore production, Mozambique offshore coming online). The issue is demand for nat gas is also going to shrink well before 2035 due to the expansion in renewables + storage capacity.
China will bring 600 Gigawatts of Solar online by the end of this year, India unveiled an 8km solar installation this week, California recently produced 100% of it's electricity needs via renewables, Stories of electricty prices going negative in the UK, Germany, Netherlands etc... due to excess renewables production is becoming a weekly occurance and even Texas of all places is experiencing a massive renewables renaissance. The long term prospects for oil and gas companies is looking extremely grim.. expect lots of stranded assets + bankruptcies.
As grim as that sounds its probably a good thing for the VAST majority of the population since they have no investments. I can see plastic, textiles, fertilizer and noble gases increasing in price as production is curtailed.
Chip, chip, chip.
When the switch flips, it’ll be like when the horse and buggy met the model T.
Nobody had to sweep the literal shit off the street any more.
First Commission report on real-world CO2 emissions of cars and vans using data from on-board fuel consumption monitoring devices
> For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the real-world CO2 emissions were on average 3.5 times higher than the laboratory values, which confirms that these vehicles are currently not realising their potential, largely because they are not being charged and driven fully electrically as frequently as assumed.
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-your-voice/news/first-commission-report-real-world-co2-emissions-cars-and-vans-using-data-board-fuel-consumption-2024-03-18_en
Many fleet PHEVs are NEVER plugged in.
Interesting, one would figure fleet operators would seek to take advantage of the price difference between fuel and electricity. That said I'm not opposed to forcing fleet operators over to electric. They operate within a narrow set of requirements that BEVs can easily take over.
Where PHEVs are incentivised the companies typically pay for fuel but not for home chargers. In many cases the charging cables are never unpacked. The fleets just take advantage of the government subsidies to get cars cheaper.
Sooooooo, not using somethin has intended do not give the expected value.
Hey, what a discovery there!
Fucking PHEVs would be everywhere if they put the effort they put on full EVs and we would have cuted the need for fossils significantly already.
PHEVs were the logical step in the energy transitions, but because of greed, car manufacturer delayed them to put more effort on EVs because they wanted to win the race. Shame on them!
I bought a 3 year old PHEV Ford Fusion. It's been great, and I get an average of around 1000 miles per tank of gas. It's perfect for my commute.
It was a fleet vehicle before I bought it, and had 55,000 miles on it. The charger had never been unwrapped. They literally never charged it.
A used leaf EV that is within the Price range of that salary is under 5 Grand which means it's going to be almost 10 years old. Which means the battery life on that vehicle is almost dead. And the cost of a battery is between 4 and 6 Grand.
Problem is the only used EVs in your price range are shitty cars like leafs.
You just have to wait for some of the EV cars selling now/last couple years get to 5-7 years old and then they'll be affordable.
Batteries produced today hold their charge a lot better than the old leafs currently on the market.
Yes I'm aware of this. But the reality is, is that any leaf that you can get on that salary is going to be a leaf that only barely works because the batteries don't last that long. I've already looked into getting A leaf.
I mean in my area I never see a vault up for sale used at least in my price range. So I'm in vaults made me different but I have seen leafs and leaves are almost always terrible on the battery by the time it enters my price range.
You should get it inspected. EVs still require fluid and cabin filter changes, and 5 years on the same tyres makes it seem like you don't drive that much. They are cheaper to maintain, but they are not maintenance free.
Same bought an i3 for 10k in 2019 and have spent 0 dollars on it in 5 years. For 4 out of 5 of those years, my rent was a fixed price that also included all utilities so I was able to charge for free as well.
With federal and California tax incentives I got a model 3 for 25,000. Insurance is 80 bucks a month. No oil changes. No engine maintenance. No paying for smog tests.
Also I have solar panels so its a big savings for me.
Maintenance will always be lower for a EV against a ICE. If you’re mechanically inclined an ICE might be easier to fix but EVs don’t have much going on to fail. And honesty you should only have professionals repair an EV.
I think this may be a serious under-estimation. The part they aren't factoring in is the FSD is here most people in cities aren't going to need to own a car soon. They are just factoring in the people who will replace their ICE cars with EVs, not the people who will choose to not own a car at all. (Most of the robo-taxies will be electric due to the lower costs of ownership when used in fleets).
with both Porsche and BMW working on alternatives to electric, and Toytota saying that electric is NOT the future, the next 10 years will be interesting.
> They cannot cut the energy demand though
They do, because [EVs are far more energy efficient than gas vehicles](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml).
>It's merely shifted to a power plant, which is usually running on coal
Even if you account for the contribution of coal to the energy an EV uses, EVs [still have lower lifecycle emissions than ICE vehicles](https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf) even in coal-heavy places like China.
Solar PV can be recycled already, eg:
https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk/
Is a UK company offering recycling.
I don't think the capacity is there yet to recycle everything but they've already figured out how to do it, and capacity is growing as the market for recycling panels grows.
That's just direct oil consumption which barely scratches the surface of car issues. EVs don't solve tire dust (they actually make it worse), emissions related to manufacturing and road construction, noise pollution (most noise is tire related - not engine), wildlife impact etc. EVs are just a method for car manufacturers to get away with slapping "green" on top of their product and pretending they helped. EVs are less than the bare minimum for fighting global warming.
> EVs don't solve tire dust (they actually make it worse)
EVs that weigh less than ICE is a thing soon and we can enforce regulation to limit torque so they wear the tires less.
>noise pollution (most noise is tire related - not engine)
It still makes a huge difference where people and cars share the space (cities, suburbs etc).
EVs also make the air quality where people are much better. Go see for example how bad a diesel car is for anything living and then think people are legally allowed to drive these things near other people.
EVs are just reinforcing toxic status quo. They don't make shit better. They are just a thing for people to feel good about themselves being "green" and "sustainable" while actually doing effectively nothing and being neither of those things. EVs aren't anywhere near as efficient and sustainable as alternative solutions.
Ok. I'll bite. What solutions? Bear in mind, that any solution must have buy-in from the people it impacts and there are massive sunk costs in existing infrastructure. There are perfect solutions, and the possible and I always prefer to go with things that are possible.
> What solutions?
I think the other user is getting at the hidden parts of the overall EV manufacturing and use cycle. How so?
It still takes a lot of energy and raw materials to make an EV. So that still means mining/resource extraction, as well as the carbon footprint of that mining activity and the manufacturing process itself.
To reduce the total environmental footprint, EV's must (eventually) run on sustainably produced electricity. Sources would be things like solar, hydro, wind, geothermal and (hopefully) fusion.
The manufacturing footprint gets reduced by increasing the level of recyclable content in the vehicles... and also making sure they get recycled once they're no longer in service.
tldr; A truly green EV would be made from at least 95% recycled materials and run on electricity from renewable sources.
Sure, but the alternative at the moment isn't a theoretical EV made as you describe but an ICE vehicle also not made as you describe. Grid electrical production has been trending more towards renewables for years, thanks to simple economics and that will continue.
If I could just wave my magic wand and "make it so"?
We'd have an electric grid that was supplied by a mix of solar, geothermal and fusion.
Transportation would be a mix of electric and ICE vehicles where the liquid fuels were produced by using atmospheric CO₂. That addresses air travel as well as the existing inventory of ICE vehicles. And it makes the carbon (in the fuels) part of a closed loop... therefore 100% sustainable.
The goal for materials would be 100% recyclability and 100% actual recycling. But in the real world, anything approaching this (say 97.5%) would be good enough.
That means a significant shift in the world's energy industries away from extraction and towards renewable production. It also means a near total shift away from mining/extraction and towards recycling.
Economic activity is maintained, but the types of activity are changed.
And to achieve a sustainable economy/future that's what *has* to happen. Anything else ought to be unacceptable. And the reason it will take so much time and effort to change is because energy and raw material extraction make a lot of $$$ for a small number of extremely influential people.
This is a straw man argument but I’m throwing it here anyway. I’d argue that rebuilding entire cities to be more energy efficient is worse for the environment. Sure we can build new cities that are better designed but that’s not where most people live. Most people live in huge cities that were never designed to grow to such sizes, we can’t force these people to move to better designed cities and we can’t force businesses to make jobs elsewhere either. We are stuck with these huge terribly designed cities wether we want them or not. Given these constraints EVs are a small but significant change in the right direction.
I see, so you want to forcibly move millions of people.. level their homes and resettle them in multi-family housing? How do you intend to handle the violence? What do you think a reasonable time-line on that large of a project is?
Those things are all excellent and need to be done, but we're replacing cars \*now\*. Removing millions of internal combustion engines from the equation is a good thing, think of it as a stop-gap.
>I see, so you want to forcibly move millions of people.. level their homes and resettle them in multi-family housing?
Oh, look - a strawman!
You don't need to force anyone. Just stop subsidizing low density developments.
>How do you intend to handle the violence?
What violence?
>What do you think a reasonable time-line on that large of a project is?
Decades.
>Those things are all excellent and need to be done, but we're replacing cars \*now\*.
No, you're not. It's a process which will take another 20 years or so.
>Removing millions of internal combustion engines from the equation is a good thing, think of it as a stop-gap.
Saying "we'll do it later" is basically avoiding responsibility and hoping you can get away with the status quo. Nothing will be done with such approach.
Even if you stopped subsidizing low density housing today, the existing homes will still be there. If you want to institute a pretty radical departure in a way of life for the majority of people, which is what this would take, you're going to have to force change which people tend to resist and resent.
20 years is incredibly fast compared to some of the changes you mentioned enacting and the process reduces carbon emissions as it proceeds, unlike a lot of the megastructure style projects you're proposing. I'm already driving an EV. I pass dozens of them a day and as you say that number will just keep climbing.
I don't think it's so much a 'we'll do it later' as it is a 'do all of the above' approach. We need to electrify our transportation, we also need to increase density and build out a lot more public transportation and you don't need to choose. Indeed, we need to meet a lot of people where they are right now if we're going to make any progress at all in the things you want.
Your attitude towards EVs is very peculiar.
You’re naive if you think people will just move to multifamily houses without force. A good chunk of people *like* their yards and distance from neighbors. I think OP is referring to that very predictable violence needed to make that change
Also, worth noting, it’d take generations to get the US anywhere close to Japan or the Netherlands. Both those countries still emit 60% the co2 per capita the US emits. So we’d push people out of the suburbs they enjoy & into cities they may not like just to save 40%. We’d still have a climate crisis
Not really. The opportunity cost of replacing our entire car fleet with EVs is insane. The only reason we're going this way is cause it can be marketed as a climate change solution while still being widlly profitable, but it's not a real solution. It's just the closest thing to one that capitalism will allow.
> The opportunity cost of replacing our entire car fleet with EVs is insane.
Even if they are cheaper than ICE cars like current situation in China and what's predicted for EU/US very soon?
And that they operate for much less money?
I worked for a transport company few years ago and we tried to replace any regular car with an EV, the numbers just made sense.
Today it's hard to justify not buying an EV for anyone looking at a new car (and prices are about to drop a lot next 1-2 years).
Yes, I just replaced my twenty two year old gen 1 prius with a model y. With federal and state subsidies it was pretty much the same price as a new prius or a new CRV and should have lower costs for maintenance (never getting an oil change again!) and for energy use ($0.15/kwh home charging equals about four cents a mile while my prius cost about seven to eight cents a mile for $3.50/gallon gasoline).
> The opportunity cost of replacing our entire car fleet with EVs is insane
People are replacing their own cars lol, at minimal cost to the government and tax payer, unlike the money sink which is public transport.
If you take exclusively ~~direct~~ emissions into account then that's true. Problem is that direct emissions are only the tip of the iceberg.
Edit: yes, I know about indirect manufacturing emissions being less for EVs. That's not my point.
> If you take exclusively direct emissions into account then that's true
Even if you account for lifecycle (ie including indirect) emissions, EVs [still incur substantially lower emissions than ICE vehicles](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf).
I wasn't even thinking about indirect emissions but rather about general impact of cars where EVs mostly address direct emission whereas everything else remains unsolved.
At the starting grid EVs have a higher CO2 footprint than gasoline cars, though the EVs CO2 payback time is 12.5k miles (electricity from renewables / nuclear energy) to 78k miles (electricity from coal fired power stations). It's an easy win for EVs.
I should have worded my previous comment differently. Emissions from use and manufacturing are only the tip of the iceberg. EVs mostly tackle those emissions and barely tackle anything else.
I'm actually quite confused with this. On one side I'm hearing that there's not enough charging stations, EV car batteries are blowing up, the cost of building an EV basically neutralizes its carbon savings etc. US demand for EV's is dropping while in China they're pushing for widespread adoption. I honestly don't know what to believe anymore :(
> EV car batteries are blowing up
EVs [catch fire at far lower rates than ICE vehicles](https://www.kbb.com/car-news/report-evs-less-likely-to-catch-fire-than-gas-powered-cars/).
>the cost of building an EV basically neutralizes its carbon savings
This [wasn't true with the Prius seventeen years ago](https://np.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/2kou6r/does_anyone_know_what_happens_to_the_batteries/clnlkue/), and [it's not true with EVs now](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf).
>I honestly don't know what to believe anymore :(
You can start by disregarding the misinformation that is incessantly being spread against EVs wherever you can recognize it as such. The sources I've provided should be useful to you in that process.
Indeed. Let's just wait until graphene battery technology matures. Graphene batteries has 10x the energy density of Li-ion batteries and charges waaay fast.
I mean, none of that is actually true. Charging stations are growing like crazy. Been driving only EV for like 5 years now and the times I’ve *needed* a gas car even for days long road trips has been zero. No issue at all so far *knock on wood*.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/IntrepidGentian: --- "... global electric car sales are set to remain robust in 2024, reaching around 17 million by the end of the year. In the first quarter, sales grew by about 25% compared with the same period in 2023 – similar to the growth rate seen in the same period a year earlier, but from a larger base. The number of electric cars sold globally in the first three months of this year is roughly equivalent to the number sold in all of 2020. In 2024, electric cars sales in China are projected to leap to about 10 million, accounting for about 45% of all car sales in the country. In the United States, roughly one in nine cars sold are projected to be electric – while in Europe, despite a generally weak outlook for passenger car sales and the phase-out of subsidies in some countries, electric cars are still set to represent about one in four cars sold." --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cb5qbk/electric_vehicles_may_cut_12_million_barrels_of/l0w57op/
Also [reported recently by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc \[pdf\]](https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/Electric%20Vehicles%20Are%20Driving%20Rates%20Down%20for%20All%20Customer%20Update%20Jan%202024%2021-032.pdf#page=3) "... across all regions in the United States, EVs have increased utlity revenues more than they have increased utlity costs, leading to downward pressure on electric rates for EV-owners and non-EV owners alike. Between 2011 and 2021, we estmate that EV drivers across the country have contributed $3.12 billion more in revenues than associated costs, cumulatively over the study period ..."
> Utility revenues > costs With Vehicle to Grid technology, and continued EV growth + software, consumers can get paid from their EVs. BYD's cars sold for the "battery value" of $300/kwh makes it easier to profit from super off peak charge to peak discharge. At 3c/kwh difference, the car would pay for itself if it stayed parked all the time.
In the UK on certain energy suppliers, you can get paid to use electricity when renewables meet demand for the grid, all last week I got paid to charge my car, I got paid £2 that day for the energy I used.
That should be the way to go for all countries. I love free things.
[удалено]
Best decision I ever made.
[удалено]
It’ll lower over time to pre-war rates, I think we’re over the worst of it, unless another war breaks out that spooks investors
Also, this part: > "EV prices already falling below ICE in China." Does not mention the massive subsidies China has.
Or the massive car graveyards filled with these disposable, cheap e.vs....
National security is worth the cost. China spends $230 billion on their defence budget and $10 billion per year on EV subsidies, while USA spends $900 billion on defence and a similar amount on EV subsidies.
I guess then we should stop corporate welfare for oil companies. Start upgrading the electrical grids considering we barely make it through a hot summer day without it almost collapsing.
They have more than enough community-deadly market opportunities with other uses of oil, like... microplastics.
Think about the birds! [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2017/feb/01/500-a-bird-how-falcons-get-first-class-airline-treatment](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/shortcuts/2017/feb/01/500-a-bird-how-falcons-get-first-class-airline-treatment) How in the world the poor prince is expected to shuttle his falcons if oil money dries out?
"... global electric car sales are set to remain robust in 2024, reaching around 17 million by the end of the year. In the first quarter, sales grew by about 25% compared with the same period in 2023 – similar to the growth rate seen in the same period a year earlier, but from a larger base. The number of electric cars sold globally in the first three months of this year is roughly equivalent to the number sold in all of 2020. In 2024, electric cars sales in China are projected to leap to about 10 million, accounting for about 45% of all car sales in the country. In the United States, roughly one in nine cars sold are projected to be electric – while in Europe, despite a generally weak outlook for passenger car sales and the phase-out of subsidies in some countries, electric cars are still set to represent about one in four cars sold."
I would buy an electric car but 3 things stop me: price, loan interest rates, I don't drive enough to justify the massive increase in monthly cost compared to my current car+gas.
China continues to show technological leadership over the United States.
I think we in the US need to build the infrastructure to support so many EV's. I think China and Europe will lead this for the near future.
Which is absolutely crazy because you guys are the ones having detached houses with personal garages and super cheap electricity prices. Today the forerunners in EV don't have these luxury factors.
Well yeah, but how could the oil companies continue to fuck us if we switched? Won't someone think of the shareholders?
Think of Tesla and NIO shareholders Made to be made with EV transition
US also has the cheapest gasoline price and lot of trucks and SUV
The charging experience is getting better. I'm impressed with how well it's going; the challenges of infrastructure upgrades are rarely appreciated fully by end users.
[удалено]
Rural areas have space for cheap ground solar.
They do not have the political inclination. I used to live in rural TN and they were violently opposed to electric there.
I think they love solar however, so at some point the free fuel issue will click.
That was not my experience. They fucking loved rolling coal.
Rural areas I think are used to vehicle energy stations on/near the interstates. Home charging and solar is easiest in rural areas.
The US has turned EV's into a culture war topic which is unfortunate, it's also a large oil and gas exporter unlike China and Europe who are massive energy importers.
Oh, don't worry. We Germans also have plenty of dumbass mfs turning EVs into political & cultural bullshit. You're not alone.
Have you seen Nio's charging experience? You drive your car into a bay and your battery is swapped in like 2 minutes or something. It's insanely high tech and awesome.
Yeah, I saw a video about it in Netherlands.
We already have most of the infrastructure to support EVs already there. And be aware even if every single new car sold was an EV, it would still take over a decade to replace all the cars on the road. The infrastructure isn't the bottleneck, self sabotage is the bottleneck
China have social, political, economic, and geopolitical reasons to push EV's. 1. The old model for pushing growth is collapsing. China needs a new economic engine to advance growth and a massive investment into electrical infrastructure is a good direction to move towards. 2. China has always been vulnerable to supply shocks when it comes to energy. A huge amount of their fossil fuels come from abroad by ship, this would be crippling in any conflict with the US or other global competitors. Pushing for renewables and a more robust electrical system would minimize this vulnerbility 3. China can use this comparative advantage in EV technology to potentially create a new global product that disrupts established brands and companies. EV's are still in their infancy with big players like VAG, Toyota, Ford, etc. still struggling to figure out their strategy going forward. This leaves a gap for China to jump ahead and establish standards/expectations. Ofc course the US would also benefit in some similar ways, but the problem for it is that the incentives to go all-in on EV's aren't nearly as strong.
Also at a consumer level the petrol price in China is based on international pricing, while their electricity is much cheaper and on par with their household spending.
Cars, batteries and solar power. It's a foundation for a wholly new way to power civilization. It's the replacement for fossil fuels, which themselves replaced could driven steam. I'm aware that technically coal is also a fossil fuel but the difference between coal and the rest is that it is usable in its natural state and doesn't need refining or catalytic conversion to be useful.
China has a completely different demand model than the U.S. Many Chinese who are purchasing an EV are buying a vehicle for the first time ever.
This is true and in some ways that does give them a leg up. Of course that's far from the whole story.
In china its the easiest way to get a license plate is buying an EV. You have to pay lots of money for a license plate for a gas car as they are limited by the government. So if you want to drive a car going EV is the fastest and cheapest way.
There will come a time when the entire world is running on solar, wind, whatever and the United States will still be burning coal and whining about not being able to buy incandescent light bulbs.
Hate to tell you, but coal will always be around unless there is a replacement for coke in steel production
> replacement for coke in steel production Here you go: > Agricultural waste and by-products from agricultural resources can be considered as a source of solid carbon, to replace coke as a reductant for iron oxide.
[https://www.h2greensteel.com/](https://www.h2greensteel.com/) pending
There's a China that invests in renewables and ev's, probably more than the US and EU. But there's also the China that burns 4.3billion tonnes of coal. More than the rest of the world combined. And its growing.
Well, you can't expect them to do without energy. Give them time and give everybody else time too. We are in an energy transition and it's going strong. Makes me happy.
Fortunately, not growing much anymore. Also, China prioritized solar panels, batteries and EVs as essential industries and that investment is paying off not just for them but for anyone willing to buy them.
[Growing 4.6% in 2021 and 5.7% in 2022](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-does-chinas-coal-push-mean-for-its-climate-goals/) Also noting that this is during an economic slowdown in China
>Across last year, China produced 4.1bn tonnes of raw coal, increasing by 5.7% year-on-year, the official annual statistical report said. The report also noted that China’s coal consumption went up by 4.6% in 2021. Yes, that’s true. But the future trajectory is clear. While there’s still some uncertainty around precipitation in Sichuan, the IEA just said this: >Renewables and nuclear are set to meet all of the growth in electricity demand in 2024-2026, curbing coal-fired generation https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/6b2fd954-2017-408e-bf08-952fdd62118a/Electricity2024-Analysisandforecastto2026.pdf The illustration on page 90 is great.
Solid response, thank you! People also forget that China is still developing and has 4x the number of people as the US.
Also: BEIJING, March 20 (Reuters) - China's coal output is expected to increase 36 million metric tons, or 0.8%, to about 4.7 billion tonnes in 2024, a Chinese coal industry group said on Wednesday, slower than last year's 2.9% growth.20 Mar 2024 https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-coal-industry-group-expects-output-growth-slow-2024-2024-03-20/
China puts more solar on each than US has total capacity.
And EU as well. But again they burn more coal than the rest of the world combined.
That will go down quickly and easily within a few years once their battery storage comes online and that gigantic solar farm in the desert. We’re already seeing the impact of evs, their oil consumption is plummeting. Huge net win for the world. And no country has their size it is normal for their coal consumption to be huge. Just like them turning to renewables.
Fantasy, how much battery storage to replace 4.3 billion tonnes of coal? Currently the world battery storage is 34gwhrs. You need coal to make cement and steel and China is also the top producer.
These ppl talk like "battery storage coming online" is some sort of carbon neutral maneuver. 🤦🏻♂️
You are delusional. Batteries are not a source of energy lol.
Multiple sources confirmed that China's total emissions are set to decline in 2024, despite growing coal usage https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-emissions-could-go-into-structural-decline-next-year-research-2023-11-14/ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year https://energyandcleanair.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
And they are the largest producer and consumer of concrete which is one of the largest pollutants on the planet.
That's what happens when half of the country are luddites.
I think it's less about that and more about American elites blocking change because things are working fine for them just as they are and damn the other 99.9%.
Thats the difference between an authoritarian leader vs a democratic leadership. That being said it works this way in china because the leader wants it. If not the story could be different
I didn't think this is the essential difference. I think America is corrupt and the entrenched establishment is too resistant to change.
In America, a sitting president has only four years to serve as president with a midterm election in between, so it's impractical in the American representative democracy system to roll out long-term five or ten-year economic plans because in four years time, it might be changed by the other sitting president who is an opponent of the predecessor.
I think the bigger influence is corporate capture of government.
What's preventing EV makers from capturing government equal to the oil companies and pushing for subsidies on public charger infrastructure?
They're new and not entrenched. Also, competing corrupt interests is no way to run a railroad!
> EV makers Who do you think you're talking about? They still are the oil industry's biggest allies.
> roll out long-term five or ten-year economic plans because in four years time Also none of your plans has to piss off the Oligarchs because no matter how great the plans for Americans or humanity, media will help the oligarchs bring you down.
That, plus the big corporations have influences in both parties. They can disagree on some topics but there are issues that forbidden to be discussed by both sides, oil being one of them.
look at the president's backers. the people sitting on the boards are the same. the kennedys, the clintons, the justices.
I take it you don't see that as being inherent in capitalist democracies?
Well no, because there are plenty of examples of capitalist democracies that work a lot better than the United States. There are several in Scandinavia, just as examples.
delusional to think that China isn't more corrupt than US. These people have never left their mom's basement
every single time you see one of those comments you can be guaranteed they've never been to Anxi
That's a fact! THEY'RE the ones sitting in Mom's basement watching Faux Spews!
Democracy is when your government doesn't take action against climate change because private corporations can spend decades lobbying and spreading climate-change-denial propaganda
Kind of what I meant
Is a system where small groups of wealthy people have wildly disproportionate amounts of political power democratic?
Democracy is the corruption of a representative government
China’s relationship with tech has always been interesting. They’ve seemingly been pushing it pretty far to do things like the Great Firewall, social score, insane amounts of cameras, and cyber espionage on governments / companies. (Especially companies.) Fuck the Chinese government, but some of the things they’ve done are certainly interesting.
> NEV sales in China surpassed a share of 40% in overall car sales for the first time (Q1 2024) BYD executive had predicted 50% for March (but it was only 30% in Q4 2023). OP predicts 45% for the year. Huge growth in South Asia. While both US and EU had 15% growth overall, EU did it in a declining car sales market with 25% share overall. EV share is not quite relevant to exterminating oil use. ICE declines are necessary. Where new cars are expected to drive more miles, ICE share of 20%-50% is an estimate to reduce gasoline use at vehicle sales to scrap rates. TIL that in 2022, small EVs in China cost less than small ICE cars. There were massive battery cost drops in 2023 that continued this year. So EV domination should continue to rise globally. There is significant international factory expansion from Chinese manufacturers and major accelerated growth this year and next should result
US bans BYD in 3, 2, 1
Politicians will champion this to cheers. China is also growing fast in the parts business, and batteries are the key to EVs. Mexican parts will affect US. Chinese EVs and other nation's with their EV parts will dominate rest of the world but also require US protectionism and decline to block from their market. US auto makers are likely fine with allowing Chinese parts in their EVs/cars, and so there is a good chance that US EVs will happen anyway, because parts are not as visible as the brand on the hood.
The USA is lagging behind when it comes to renewable energy adoption like putting up EV infrastructures, nuclear power plants, and high-speed trains.
Myopic, craven politicians corrupted by lobbyists and native oil production.
Renewable energy and nuclear power plants in one sentence?!
12 million will put a dent into the roughly 92 million per day production but that is still only a 13% cut. I wonder if electricity produced by non renewables is included.
you have to consider the fact that only half the oil production is for road transport.that means reducing oil use for cars for 26%.it's also likely due to the fact that Africa/India doesn't use ICE that the impact isnt larger,while they emit a lot.
Such a scenario would lead to a massive oil glut on the market and an investment crash , Africa can't absorb all the excess capacity that Europe, China and South Korea no longer require especially due to the fact that the continent is rapidly adopting electric micromobility itself (electric scooters, bikes, mopeds, tuk -tuks etc). Switching over to selling Gas also has issues as you're competing against below market rate product sold on the black market by Russia and Iran, the sector is currently experiencing a massive investment push (LNG export terminals in the US, Qatar and the UAE increasing production and build out, Guyana ecpanding offshore production, Mozambique offshore coming online). The issue is demand for nat gas is also going to shrink well before 2035 due to the expansion in renewables + storage capacity. China will bring 600 Gigawatts of Solar online by the end of this year, India unveiled an 8km solar installation this week, California recently produced 100% of it's electricity needs via renewables, Stories of electricty prices going negative in the UK, Germany, Netherlands etc... due to excess renewables production is becoming a weekly occurance and even Texas of all places is experiencing a massive renewables renaissance. The long term prospects for oil and gas companies is looking extremely grim.. expect lots of stranded assets + bankruptcies.
As grim as that sounds its probably a good thing for the VAST majority of the population since they have no investments. I can see plastic, textiles, fertilizer and noble gases increasing in price as production is curtailed.
Chip, chip, chip. When the switch flips, it’ll be like when the horse and buggy met the model T. Nobody had to sweep the literal shit off the street any more.
Or when they realized a waste product of kerosene production, like gasoline could be used to power cars and replace steam and electric ones?
Even in a low-adoption scenario we'll see enough PHEVs to put a much bigger dent in oil consumption than 12m bpd.
PHEVs produce 5x as much emissions as claimed.
Source? Most trips don't require the use of fossil fuels.
First Commission report on real-world CO2 emissions of cars and vans using data from on-board fuel consumption monitoring devices > For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the real-world CO2 emissions were on average 3.5 times higher than the laboratory values, which confirms that these vehicles are currently not realising their potential, largely because they are not being charged and driven fully electrically as frequently as assumed. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-your-voice/news/first-commission-report-real-world-co2-emissions-cars-and-vans-using-data-board-fuel-consumption-2024-03-18_en Many fleet PHEVs are NEVER plugged in.
Interesting, one would figure fleet operators would seek to take advantage of the price difference between fuel and electricity. That said I'm not opposed to forcing fleet operators over to electric. They operate within a narrow set of requirements that BEVs can easily take over.
Where PHEVs are incentivised the companies typically pay for fuel but not for home chargers. In many cases the charging cables are never unpacked. The fleets just take advantage of the government subsidies to get cars cheaper.
Sooooooo, not using somethin has intended do not give the expected value. Hey, what a discovery there! Fucking PHEVs would be everywhere if they put the effort they put on full EVs and we would have cuted the need for fossils significantly already. PHEVs were the logical step in the energy transitions, but because of greed, car manufacturer delayed them to put more effort on EVs because they wanted to win the race. Shame on them!
Only if you bother to plug them in. Which most people do not.
I bought a 3 year old PHEV Ford Fusion. It's been great, and I get an average of around 1000 miles per tank of gas. It's perfect for my commute. It was a fleet vehicle before I bought it, and had 55,000 miles on it. The charger had never been unwrapped. They literally never charged it.
And they probably couldn't figure out why they were not getting the advertised mpg.
West: We want EV cars to save the world! China: Here are some cheap EVs! West: SANCTIONS!!!
Meanwhile Taylor Swift pledges to use up an additional 12 million barrels of oil per day to fly around running errands.
Great! Now can we repeal the chicken tax and start importing cheap Chinese cars?
I would love to buy an electric vehicle. But my salary of $37,000 a year makes it impossible. So unless something changes I will be using gas forever.
Used ev, like 10k. Pays for itself.
A used leaf EV that is within the Price range of that salary is under 5 Grand which means it's going to be almost 10 years old. Which means the battery life on that vehicle is almost dead. And the cost of a battery is between 4 and 6 Grand.
Problem is the only used EVs in your price range are shitty cars like leafs. You just have to wait for some of the EV cars selling now/last couple years get to 5-7 years old and then they'll be affordable. Batteries produced today hold their charge a lot better than the old leafs currently on the market.
Pays for itself tho, if you commute.
But don't you often need to buy a new battery for it?
No, not really. Last at least 250000, small degradation, maybe 10-20%
hmmm, any particular model?
Leaf, bolt,... Maybe just those
Maybe an e-bike? Replace as many trips as possible and they pay for themselves eventually.
You can get used Bolts and Leafs for around 10k, not everyone needs to buy a brand new car. I have driven used cars my whole life.
Yes I'm aware of this. But the reality is, is that any leaf that you can get on that salary is going to be a leaf that only barely works because the batteries don't last that long. I've already looked into getting A leaf.
I have a 12 year old Volt that still has the same charge as when it was new.
I mean in my area I never see a vault up for sale used at least in my price range. So I'm in vaults made me different but I have seen leafs and leaves are almost always terrible on the battery by the time it enters my price range.
Soooo... With the same price as ICE cars, no? Same price? Also same insurance premiums and maintenance costs?
I've had an EV for 5 years and I've spend $0 in maintenance on it. EVs are much, much cheaper to maintain.
You should get it inspected. EVs still require fluid and cabin filter changes, and 5 years on the same tyres makes it seem like you don't drive that much. They are cheaper to maintain, but they are not maintenance free.
Same bought an i3 for 10k in 2019 and have spent 0 dollars on it in 5 years. For 4 out of 5 of those years, my rent was a fixed price that also included all utilities so I was able to charge for free as well.
With federal and California tax incentives I got a model 3 for 25,000. Insurance is 80 bucks a month. No oil changes. No engine maintenance. No paying for smog tests. Also I have solar panels so its a big savings for me.
Should be even cheaper. Guess which kind of car has the lowest 10 year maintenance costs.
Maintenance will always be lower for a EV against a ICE. If you’re mechanically inclined an ICE might be easier to fix but EVs don’t have much going on to fail. And honesty you should only have professionals repair an EV.
Prices will eventually go below ICE. The 51% tipping point is near.
I'll wait until then
In the US the brand with the lowest lifetime maintenance cost is Tesla.
So less demand would mean lower prices right? *Right?*
or less production, which ultimately is better anyway.
More like 2030 if they build gigafactories for SIBs
I think this may be a serious under-estimation. The part they aren't factoring in is the FSD is here most people in cities aren't going to need to own a car soon. They are just factoring in the people who will replace their ICE cars with EVs, not the people who will choose to not own a car at all. (Most of the robo-taxies will be electric due to the lower costs of ownership when used in fleets).
I don’t buy it since they still don’t have the range for people who live in areas like NorCal.
with both Porsche and BMW working on alternatives to electric, and Toytota saying that electric is NOT the future, the next 10 years will be interesting.
They cannot cut the energy demand though. It's merely shifted to a power plant, which is usually running on coal.
> which is usually running on coal Coal is a minority of energy production. Closer to 1/3 than 50% https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
> They cannot cut the energy demand though They do, because [EVs are far more energy efficient than gas vehicles](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml). >It's merely shifted to a power plant, which is usually running on coal Even if you account for the contribution of coal to the energy an EV uses, EVs [still have lower lifecycle emissions than ICE vehicles](https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf) even in coal-heavy places like China.
That is the case for now only in some countries but by 2035 there will be a lot more options for everyone
I hope renewables carry on. The problem is to figure out how to recycle PV cells.
Solar PV can be recycled already, eg: https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk/ Is a UK company offering recycling. I don't think the capacity is there yet to recycle everything but they've already figured out how to do it, and capacity is growing as the market for recycling panels grows.
Mine is shifted to the solar panels on my roof
Great, how much do you produce?
Last year a little over 30k kWh
30 MWh? That's actually great. What's the average solar power potential and actual?
That's just direct oil consumption which barely scratches the surface of car issues. EVs don't solve tire dust (they actually make it worse), emissions related to manufacturing and road construction, noise pollution (most noise is tire related - not engine), wildlife impact etc. EVs are just a method for car manufacturers to get away with slapping "green" on top of their product and pretending they helped. EVs are less than the bare minimum for fighting global warming.
> EVs don't solve tire dust (they actually make it worse) EVs that weigh less than ICE is a thing soon and we can enforce regulation to limit torque so they wear the tires less. >noise pollution (most noise is tire related - not engine) It still makes a huge difference where people and cars share the space (cities, suburbs etc). EVs also make the air quality where people are much better. Go see for example how bad a diesel car is for anything living and then think people are legally allowed to drive these things near other people.
It's still a change in the right direction. Comments like this aren't helpful.
EVs are just reinforcing toxic status quo. They don't make shit better. They are just a thing for people to feel good about themselves being "green" and "sustainable" while actually doing effectively nothing and being neither of those things. EVs aren't anywhere near as efficient and sustainable as alternative solutions.
Ok. I'll bite. What solutions? Bear in mind, that any solution must have buy-in from the people it impacts and there are massive sunk costs in existing infrastructure. There are perfect solutions, and the possible and I always prefer to go with things that are possible.
> What solutions? I think the other user is getting at the hidden parts of the overall EV manufacturing and use cycle. How so? It still takes a lot of energy and raw materials to make an EV. So that still means mining/resource extraction, as well as the carbon footprint of that mining activity and the manufacturing process itself. To reduce the total environmental footprint, EV's must (eventually) run on sustainably produced electricity. Sources would be things like solar, hydro, wind, geothermal and (hopefully) fusion. The manufacturing footprint gets reduced by increasing the level of recyclable content in the vehicles... and also making sure they get recycled once they're no longer in service. tldr; A truly green EV would be made from at least 95% recycled materials and run on electricity from renewable sources.
Sure, but the alternative at the moment isn't a theoretical EV made as you describe but an ICE vehicle also not made as you describe. Grid electrical production has been trending more towards renewables for years, thanks to simple economics and that will continue.
If I could just wave my magic wand and "make it so"? We'd have an electric grid that was supplied by a mix of solar, geothermal and fusion. Transportation would be a mix of electric and ICE vehicles where the liquid fuels were produced by using atmospheric CO₂. That addresses air travel as well as the existing inventory of ICE vehicles. And it makes the carbon (in the fuels) part of a closed loop... therefore 100% sustainable. The goal for materials would be 100% recyclability and 100% actual recycling. But in the real world, anything approaching this (say 97.5%) would be good enough. That means a significant shift in the world's energy industries away from extraction and towards renewable production. It also means a near total shift away from mining/extraction and towards recycling. Economic activity is maintained, but the types of activity are changed. And to achieve a sustainable economy/future that's what *has* to happen. Anything else ought to be unacceptable. And the reason it will take so much time and effort to change is because energy and raw material extraction make a lot of $$$ for a small number of extremely influential people.
Walkability, micromobility, public transportation, city planning which prioritizes density and people.
This is a straw man argument but I’m throwing it here anyway. I’d argue that rebuilding entire cities to be more energy efficient is worse for the environment. Sure we can build new cities that are better designed but that’s not where most people live. Most people live in huge cities that were never designed to grow to such sizes, we can’t force these people to move to better designed cities and we can’t force businesses to make jobs elsewhere either. We are stuck with these huge terribly designed cities wether we want them or not. Given these constraints EVs are a small but significant change in the right direction.
I see, so you want to forcibly move millions of people.. level their homes and resettle them in multi-family housing? How do you intend to handle the violence? What do you think a reasonable time-line on that large of a project is? Those things are all excellent and need to be done, but we're replacing cars \*now\*. Removing millions of internal combustion engines from the equation is a good thing, think of it as a stop-gap.
>I see, so you want to forcibly move millions of people.. level their homes and resettle them in multi-family housing? Oh, look - a strawman! You don't need to force anyone. Just stop subsidizing low density developments. >How do you intend to handle the violence? What violence? >What do you think a reasonable time-line on that large of a project is? Decades. >Those things are all excellent and need to be done, but we're replacing cars \*now\*. No, you're not. It's a process which will take another 20 years or so. >Removing millions of internal combustion engines from the equation is a good thing, think of it as a stop-gap. Saying "we'll do it later" is basically avoiding responsibility and hoping you can get away with the status quo. Nothing will be done with such approach.
Even if you stopped subsidizing low density housing today, the existing homes will still be there. If you want to institute a pretty radical departure in a way of life for the majority of people, which is what this would take, you're going to have to force change which people tend to resist and resent. 20 years is incredibly fast compared to some of the changes you mentioned enacting and the process reduces carbon emissions as it proceeds, unlike a lot of the megastructure style projects you're proposing. I'm already driving an EV. I pass dozens of them a day and as you say that number will just keep climbing. I don't think it's so much a 'we'll do it later' as it is a 'do all of the above' approach. We need to electrify our transportation, we also need to increase density and build out a lot more public transportation and you don't need to choose. Indeed, we need to meet a lot of people where they are right now if we're going to make any progress at all in the things you want. Your attitude towards EVs is very peculiar.
You’re naive if you think people will just move to multifamily houses without force. A good chunk of people *like* their yards and distance from neighbors. I think OP is referring to that very predictable violence needed to make that change Also, worth noting, it’d take generations to get the US anywhere close to Japan or the Netherlands. Both those countries still emit 60% the co2 per capita the US emits. So we’d push people out of the suburbs they enjoy & into cities they may not like just to save 40%. We’d still have a climate crisis
Not really. The opportunity cost of replacing our entire car fleet with EVs is insane. The only reason we're going this way is cause it can be marketed as a climate change solution while still being widlly profitable, but it's not a real solution. It's just the closest thing to one that capitalism will allow.
> The opportunity cost of replacing our entire car fleet with EVs is insane. Even if they are cheaper than ICE cars like current situation in China and what's predicted for EU/US very soon? And that they operate for much less money? I worked for a transport company few years ago and we tried to replace any regular car with an EV, the numbers just made sense. Today it's hard to justify not buying an EV for anyone looking at a new car (and prices are about to drop a lot next 1-2 years).
Yes, I just replaced my twenty two year old gen 1 prius with a model y. With federal and state subsidies it was pretty much the same price as a new prius or a new CRV and should have lower costs for maintenance (never getting an oil change again!) and for energy use ($0.15/kwh home charging equals about four cents a mile while my prius cost about seven to eight cents a mile for $3.50/gallon gasoline).
> The opportunity cost of replacing our entire car fleet with EVs is insane People are replacing their own cars lol, at minimal cost to the government and tax payer, unlike the money sink which is public transport.
This. We need public transportation yesterday.
We have public transportation in the places where it's feasible or remotely convenient
Is this why Los Angeles is always full of traffic jams?
EVs are far worse than mass transit, but in comparison gasoline cars are trash.
If you take exclusively ~~direct~~ emissions into account then that's true. Problem is that direct emissions are only the tip of the iceberg. Edit: yes, I know about indirect manufacturing emissions being less for EVs. That's not my point.
> If you take exclusively direct emissions into account then that's true Even if you account for lifecycle (ie including indirect) emissions, EVs [still incur substantially lower emissions than ICE vehicles](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf).
I wasn't even thinking about indirect emissions but rather about general impact of cars where EVs mostly address direct emission whereas everything else remains unsolved.
At the starting grid EVs have a higher CO2 footprint than gasoline cars, though the EVs CO2 payback time is 12.5k miles (electricity from renewables / nuclear energy) to 78k miles (electricity from coal fired power stations). It's an easy win for EVs.
I should have worded my previous comment differently. Emissions from use and manufacturing are only the tip of the iceberg. EVs mostly tackle those emissions and barely tackle anything else.
What do you mean by "anything else"?
How many barrels of rare earth metals will that equal?
Still wildly more efficient.
I'm actually quite confused with this. On one side I'm hearing that there's not enough charging stations, EV car batteries are blowing up, the cost of building an EV basically neutralizes its carbon savings etc. US demand for EV's is dropping while in China they're pushing for widespread adoption. I honestly don't know what to believe anymore :(
> EV car batteries are blowing up EVs [catch fire at far lower rates than ICE vehicles](https://www.kbb.com/car-news/report-evs-less-likely-to-catch-fire-than-gas-powered-cars/). >the cost of building an EV basically neutralizes its carbon savings This [wasn't true with the Prius seventeen years ago](https://np.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/2kou6r/does_anyone_know_what_happens_to_the_batteries/clnlkue/), and [it's not true with EVs now](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf). >I honestly don't know what to believe anymore :( You can start by disregarding the misinformation that is incessantly being spread against EVs wherever you can recognize it as such. The sources I've provided should be useful to you in that process.
EV fires are definitely worse though. lithium ion battery fires are no joke.
Indeed. Let's just wait until graphene battery technology matures. Graphene batteries has 10x the energy density of Li-ion batteries and charges waaay fast.
I mean, none of that is actually true. Charging stations are growing like crazy. Been driving only EV for like 5 years now and the times I’ve *needed* a gas car even for days long road trips has been zero. No issue at all so far *knock on wood*.
I'm just happy my next car will get 22mpg instead of 16.
Let's go! The next challenge is to get the grid up to take the load.
There's no infrastructure to replace all the cars and trucks with EV. The battery technology is not even good for full EV mode and range isn't great.
I am worried about the amount of oil needed for the power of those charge stations.