Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zombienudist t1_ixa0wyw wrote

Reply to comment by H2FLO in How do you find out whether companies manufacture their products morally and sustainably? by Dokayn

I am including that carbon cost to manufacture in that. So even with the carbon cost to manufacturer the new BEV I am still better off with it rather then a used gas car. I did another comment further down where I did the math for someone else.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/comments/z10bs2/comment/ix9bvtv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

People tend to vastly overestimate the emissions they think it takes to build a car whether electric or gas. And they vastly underestimate the emissions in operation of ICE vehicles. And the source of electricity also matters. I was saying this to show that there isn't a blanket answer that is correct here. It would depend on many different factors.

And it does reduce it that much. Where I live when you factor in the total lifecycle (manufacturing, operation, and EOL) a BEV has a carbon footprint that is 85% less then a comparable gas powered car.

3

H2FLO t1_ixa5v3f wrote

I know we all want to do a better job of reducing our carbon footprint, and I have no doubt that you’ve done your research with this, but the embodied energy it takes to produce lithium iron phosphate (or equivalent) batteries varies wildly for a bunch of reasons.

Per the attached source (below, emphasis mine): Virtually every feature of the fuel cycle for conventional cars is well understood and narrowly bounded, significantly monitored if not tightly regulated and largely assumption-free. That’s not the case for EVs.

For example, one review of 50 academic studies found estimates for embodied emissions to fabricate a single EV battery ranged from a low of about eight tons to as high as 20 tons of CO2. Another recent technical analysis put the range at about four to 14 tons. The high end of those ranges is nearly as much CO2 as is produced by the lifetime of fuel burned by an efficient conventional car. Again, that’s before the EV is delivered to a customer and driven its first mile.

The uncertainties come from inherent — and likely unresolvable — variabilities in both the quantity and type of energy used in the battery fuel cycle with factors that depend on geography and process choices, many often proprietary. Analyses of the embodied energy show a range from two to six barrels of oil (in energy-equivalent terms) is used to fabricate a battery that can store the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. Thus, any calculation of embodied emissions for an EV battery is an estimate based on myriad assumptions. The fact is, no one can measure today’s or predict tomorrow’s EV carbon dioxide “mileage.”

I do believe you have good intentions here, but I wouldn’t be so confident in your calculations. I’m in the energy industry (utility power) and I have very little faith that this technology is going to solve all of our issues. We’re going to end up with MORE waste, because these vehicles don’t last as long, and in order to recapture a fraction of lithium, you have to incinerate these cells, which produce more carbon.

In addition, I believe that the supply chain for lithium is going to get just as greasy as it became with oil. There will be a handful of countries with vast amounts of lithium that will likely control the price, similar to OPEC.

I’m not going to buy an EV any time soon for various other reasons as well, primarily the fact that there aren’t enough charging stations, and the cost for me to assume the change from my conventional gas vehicle is prohibitive. The only real solution to reduce your footprint is to simply travel less. Which, for some, is not an option. So here we are with this magic pill. I don’t believe in it quite yet.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/22/the-tough-calculus-of-emissions-and-the-future-of-evs/amp/

2

zombienudist t1_ixa87ja wrote

You can write all you want but unless you can point out where my numbers are wrong then it is a wasted effort. If I wrong then my math would be wrong. So it should be pretty easy to run the numbers to show me where I went wrong.

2

H2FLO t1_ixaubpr wrote

I’m not saying your math is wrong, I’m saying the numbers you are basing your math on are unreliable, that’s all. EVs are not as great as people think they are, is my point.

0

zombienudist t1_ixcgus8 wrote

I give numbers and math and you give feelings. Then you say the numbers are unreliable but give no reason why. If the numbers are wrong you should be able to provide your own. But you keep writing words but have nothing to substantiate them. So again I say that your words are useless without the numbers to back it up.

1

H2FLO t1_ixcp14c wrote

I provided you a source with plenty of information that explains my point.

2

zombienudist t1_ixcr7fd wrote

But can't show me where I made a mistake with my numbers. Again you wrote a lot of words but unless you can challenge directly those words are meaningless. You can't just say that my numbers are wrong for reasons that are unexplained. Should be very easy to do the math with the correct numbers. I mean the only way you can know if my numbers are wrong is if you have others. So do the math and show me I am wrong.

This is why I love math. There is no BS. You can't write out long essays that obscure the truth. The base numbers are either right or wrong. So if they are wrong it should be pretty easy to point out which ones are wrong or to do your own math. Strangely I don't see a lot of numbers in what you are writing. So do the math or don't. But don't tell me I am wrong when you can't even put a few numbers together yourself to prove you are right.

1

H2FLO t1_ixcx7h3 wrote

You’re obviously not understanding my point or read the article. It’s impossible to perform calculations when everything is variable. Enjoy your EV, brah. I’m not trying to keep you from that.

2

zombienudist t1_ixd5sp3 wrote

I understand exactly what you are saying. I just don't think it makes any sense. If it does then every life cycle study that has ever been done is wrong. The variation in the numbers is because of differences in location. So the electricity in X place is dirtier then somewhere else and you have to adjust for that. These variables are well known. You just have to do the math for each location. This is exactly what I did and why I said that here it is better. Somewhere else it might not. See understanding this allows you to use the correct numbers.

So I will say the same thing again. Unless you are able to show which of my numbers are wrong, based on my location, then you can just stop writing anything at all because it is meaningless. Seriously it is like you are telling me that 2+2 = 5 but then can't tell me how you reached the conclusion. If you are right it should be extremely easy to show that using the correct numbers. Now if you are arguing that it is completely unknowable then what kind of stupid argument is that? You need to have words with every scientific publication that has ever published a life cycle study on this because they will all be wrong too.

1

Available-Subject-33 t1_ixbu15z wrote

EVs might not be a perfect fix but it's hard to argue against them as being the future. They run primarily on electricity, which can be generated renewably through solar and wind, and while there are obvious and significant problems to be solved, Rome was not built in a day. Think how far automotive technology moved in just its first three decades.

I think that it's important that consumer embrace EVs, because increased demand will incentivize competition and thus these problems will be taken on.

What other possibilities are available, really?

1