Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Wrong there is no acceptable position to support a nazi.
Also your numbers I am confident are highly flawed and likely straight up wrong. Show me the detailed analysis of carbon footprint including mining of minerals shipping them around the world and blood diamonds catastrophe to get there. I’m willing to bet the environmental impact is negligible or ignoring the mining impact and for example to be specific there’s a difference between exclusively focusing on emissions vs the rape and pillage of earth for mining transport shipping transport convert to useful material manufacturing battery transport etc.
Such a joke.
#### Musk and #### Tesla.
|
I spent far to much time thinking about this, because I was think I answered a little harshly yesterday, but I was a little annoyed that you expressed confidence that my numbers were not only wrong but cut directly against common wisdom, and demanded that I source my information following common wisdom, which I admit was my appealing to expertise and reciting numbers for environmental scientists on podcasts. So I did a simple google search "EV vs ICEV life time emissions", and the first 4 hits were literally articles focused on debunking the myth you were demanding I provide sourcing to disprove, which means you are not holding yourself to the standard that you are holding me to, and sourcing the information that you confidently espouse. Further your claim is the one that cuts against common wisdom and should carry a higher burden of proof, and in the future if you think it is a fun and interesting fact that common society is wrong about one of the innovations it is excited about, you should check that you are right before publicly pushing the claim.
But I did consider the alternative claim that not emissions, but land use would be worse for an EV, and it seemed slightly more credible to me, so this morning I took the time to look and found relatively little directly addressing the lift time land use question. I will caveat the fact that because I cannot find good articles directly comparing the two, I asked ChatGPT to search the web and come up with an estimate. It warned me that these estimate could vary in extreme ways depending on the source of resource extraction, but came up with this;
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
Average 75 kWh battery
Lithium: 0.3-0.5 m²
Nickel: 0.15-0.3 m²
Cobalt: 0.03-0.05 m²
Graphite: 10-15 m²
Vehicle Type Estimated Land Use Over Lifetime
EV (400,000 miles, 75 kWh battery) 10.5 - 16 m²
ICE (300,000 miles, 32 MPG gasoline car) ~38 m²
🚗 Conclusion:
EVs use ~60-75% less land for mining materials compared to oil extraction for an ICE vehicle over their respective lifetimes.
This does not include land used for charging infrastructure, battery recycling, or secondary battery use.
If the EV battery is replaced once in its lifetime, land use doubles (~21 - 32 m²) but still remains lower than gasoline.
|
So I had very strong priors in favor of EVs in terms of GHGs, and I was agnostic about EVs vs ICEVs in terms of land uses. This answer from ChatGPT and the fact that ICEVs require recurring life time land use, slightly tip the scales in favor of EVs for land use as well, in terms of my estimation for land use. So in the future when someone is making claims of about the open pit lithium mines, I am probably going to hold them to the standard of proving that those add up to more land use than fuel extraction. I really appreciate the concern for the environmental impacts of EVs, but I get really annoyed when the concern is solely and firmly routed in a desire to ignore the environmental impacts of traditional fuels, I don't know if it is motivation be a subconscious concern for the industry one is supported by, fear of changing technology and a desire to be contrarian and privy to special knowledge that others around you are not. But I am sure that most of the people who smugly say EVs are just as bad are engaged in some form of motivated reasoning, and are at the very least cherry picking their sourcing, if not spreading anecdotes without bothering to source them.