Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan2
Has there been a study that both sides agree about the metrics and what is being measured?
The one thought I have is that comparing lithium mines to O/G extraction does not take into account that O/G is not 100% used for gasoline. Also, avoiding the oil sands, it seems like most O/G extraction is minimally invasive and able to be remediated (if the company actually does it, another topic) whereas a strip mine is not.
I am curious about the process and all of the inputs and would love to see a measured study on this.
|
I posted several articles on the green house gas difference showing 3:1 in North America, and explained why it is better than that in most of Canada, and why it is likely cars sold today will be better than current projections, because of improvements in the grid over the life of the car.
I also tried to find articles on land use, but it was hard to find. So I turned to Chat GPT, and for what it is work Chat GPT claims the life time land Use of an ICEV is higher than the lifetime land use of an EV with 2 full battery lives used. I think for all of the open pit mining complaints... Land use is a good analog for measuring what those open pit mines actually mean in relation to O&G extraction.
Basically the information is out there, and it says EVs are better but not perfect. But better is better, and the arguments that we should stop pushing EVs are bad arguments (aside from maybe the ones about better deployment of mass transit)
*Also for those who will argue that hydrogen is better, the infrastructure technology basically does not exist to supply low emission hydrogen fuel at scale. The hydrogen on the market is pretty much as bad as gasoline.
And back on topic