The @guardian has a new piece on the well known problems related to electric vehicles, solar and wind.
I think the focus on resource use and responsible mining is great. As long as we also remind ourselves that fossil fuels are worse. theguardian.com/environment/20…
Remember that a car burns ~ 25 000 liters of fossil fuel over its lifetime. Do you really think that's better than 200 kg battery materials that's recyclable? And cobalt is also used for cleaning fossil fuel.
Apart from climate change the amount of ecosystem degradation, direct human suffering, conflict and corruption due to oil is much larger but that apparently generates less clicks. doi.org/10.1111/rode.1…
Unfortunately, as it stands now, I agree with the article but for many readers this is just a reason for pearl clutching and renewables bashing before taking a ride back in a far worse fossil fueled car. Shame.
In the real world: electric vehicles cause much less greenhouse gas, energy demand, ozone, particulate matter, human toxicity and water use. But yes, a *bit* more minerals. So let's indeed mine more sustainably. But never forget fossil cars are worse. ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/cl…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
First I should be more precise:
- This is for the German situation.
- It looks at the price for farmers.
- There are large differences between types of meat and whether they are produced conventionally or organically.
This table shows the emissions per foodstuff in kg CO2eq per kg of foodstuff:
Beef 37 kg
Poultry 16-20 kg
Pork 6-10 kg
Eggs 1-2 kg
Milk 1 kg
Cereal 0.2-0.4 kg
Fruit 0.2-0.3 kg
Root crops 0.1 kg
Vegetables 0.0 kg
The report is very friendly about gasoline and diesel bc it conforms to official tests that we know are too optimistic about exhaust (e.g. from #dieselgate) but even then it just claims the problem won't go away when using EVs although there's a small but significant improvement.
Recently @OECD published a report about particulate matter (PM) from road transport. Newspaper headlines blared that electric vehicles where worse than combustion vehicles. That conclusion was wrong according to the report itself.
It's main point is well taken: as cars get cleaner, fine particles emitted by brakes, tires and road surfaces will become more important.
The table comparing electric and combustion engines is on page 92. I took averages of low and high values to get the graph in the first tweet.
We have another winner coming up with what he thinks is a novel idea: "Additional electricity requires coal plants to produce more energy hence electric vehicles run on coal."
First: the German mix gets cleaner as time goes one which means electric vehicles get cleaner as time goes on and coal is phased out before the electric vehicle is scrapped. Leaving that out makes this whole thought experiment a bit nonsensical anyway.
Second: electric vehicles will probably use 'smart charging' (to time the moment of charging) within a couple of years because it saves money for driver, energy producer and grid operator. elaad.nl/research/smart…
That means that electric vehicles will charge relatively green.
Electrofuels or eFuels are all the rage now.
The reason: lovers of combustion engines that wake up to realise their engine is really on the way out.
But eFuels into combustion engines is NOT a realistic solution for cars. Let me explain -again- why. autocar.co.uk/opinion/indust…
eFuels are not a new idea. So I've made these calculations 15 years ago and many times since. That some people have just woken up doesn't change fundamentals that made them a bad option for cars then and make them a bad option for cars in the future.
The most basic problem is in the basic process:
electricity -> hydrogen
hydrogen -> eFuel
eFuel -> electricity
That means that you have to produce ~5x (!) more low carbon electricity. Think about the costs, space and raw materials required!