I hate this car-centric society, but let’s be real cars aren’t going anywhere. Moving away from fossil fuels is a good thing. Not sure why we’re criticizing progress here.
My 2 favorite cities that is lived in were San Francisco and Rio de Janeiro. Apart from both of them being gorgeous and fun, one of the best things was that I did not need a car.
The grid could be powered by 100% coal and an EV would still be better than an ICE car. The efficiency difference between car motors and power plants is staggering.
It’s because on the modern internet, everyone is all-or-nothing when it comes to their chosen issue. Nuance has become unacceptable.
This community in particular can get a little out of touch at times. In North America in particular, even if every level of government agreed to begin working towards a car free society immediately, we’d still be facing a decades long construction campaign as entire towns and cities would have to be restructured. In the meantime, a shift to electric vehicles is something that can drastically help the global warming issue, and can be implemented in less than a decade.
In reality, we should be shifting to electric cars in the sort term, while we work towards eliminating the need for them in the long term.
Also, I’m convinced that the brake dust/tire wear particulates talking point is the result of oil industry astroturfing. The brake dust thing especially is actually better on electric cars, since regenerative braking reduces the amount of brake wear.
The flatter torque curve (peak torque on electric cars is usually very comparable to ICE) is irrelevant, unless you are a shitty driver who treats the gas pedal like a two position switch.
EVs are about 20% heavier than the equivalent gas powered car and offer the same utility.
Full sized pickup trucks are 50-100% heavier than cars, are the most common vehicle in most of the US, and is “ usually just carrying 80kg of spongy meat.”. They are usually exactly the same levels of utility, plus don’t have any environmental benefits
The average difference between EV and a gas car is around 300 to 400 kg. With an average weight of a small car being around 1500-1700 kg, and an electric variant of the same car being 1800-2000 kg, the difference is basically nothing. It’s, like, two large dudes. And that’s smaller car, the difference in big SUVs becomes almost negligible. It’s so nothing, especially compared to all the particles EVs don’t emit, the only reason we keep talking about is astroturfed bullshit from the conservative car manufacturers. It’s from the same playbook as wanting to get rid of wind turbines because sometimes they kill birds.
For the smallest car on the market it’s around 20%. It rapidly gets smaller the bigger the vehicle is. Exchanging lack of tailpipe emissions for less than 20% increase in road damage is nobrainer.
Uno reverse : I really dont think these are all or nothing criticisms. If anything, you’re engaging in that. Just because we criticize the proposed progress doesn’t mean we oppose it. You have no room for nuance in your criticism of our criticism!
Its because EVs are being marketed as a green solution, not a stepping stone. If a car must exist it might as well be electric but we should be asking how do we reduce the cars that exist and their frequency of use. Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.
Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.
I highly, highly doubt it. I lived in the country with pretty good transit, but exclusively ICE cars. It was not good, not at all. Better than cars only, still not good. Good transit doesn’t eliminate cars, unfortunately, and always breathing car emissions is bad, very, very, very bad.
The only solution is to do both. Right now I live in the city with very good public transport, but still sprawling car infrastructure, the only difference is, there is a robust car emission rules, so most cars around are EVs or hybrids. It’s so, so, so much better than the first variation, it’s not even close.
I would prefer city getting rid of most of the car-centric infrastructure still, but now I have a chance to see this day, and not die of a lung cancer at a ripe age of 55
Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.
This choice you’ve presented is extremely misleading. The build out of electrified public transportation and the shift from ICE to EV cars are not in any way related choices. If the government chooses to build more public transportation, that has no effect on whether or not EVs replace ICE cars.
Which is good, but still has nothing to do with what the remaining cars are powered by. There’s no reason why it has to be “transit+ICE” instead of “transit+EV”.
My point is that we should be making the most impactful changes we can to fight climate change and environmental destruction, which means subsidies, government investments, and tax breaks are better spent on transit, density, or active transport than on EV infrastructure/incentives
I hate this car-centric society, but let’s be real cars aren’t going anywhere. Moving away from fossil fuels is a good thing. Not sure why we’re criticizing progress here.
Thank you for saying that
My 2 favorite cities that is lived in were San Francisco and Rio de Janeiro. Apart from both of them being gorgeous and fun, one of the best things was that I did not need a car.
Yup, which is why the policies to ban the sale of new gas powered vehicle is a good thing.
That depends on where the electricity comes from. Instead of ‘EV’ we should really be calling these things Natural Gas cars.
The grid could be powered by 100% coal and an EV would still be better than an ICE car. The efficiency difference between car motors and power plants is staggering.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the CO2 gasoline equivalent for coal-generated EV is just 29mpg; i.e. no better than a decent ICE.
https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf
People can only think in binary terms.
It’s because on the modern internet, everyone is all-or-nothing when it comes to their chosen issue. Nuance has become unacceptable.
This community in particular can get a little out of touch at times. In North America in particular, even if every level of government agreed to begin working towards a car free society immediately, we’d still be facing a decades long construction campaign as entire towns and cities would have to be restructured. In the meantime, a shift to electric vehicles is something that can drastically help the global warming issue, and can be implemented in less than a decade.
In reality, we should be shifting to electric cars in the sort term, while we work towards eliminating the need for them in the long term.
Also, I’m convinced that the brake dust/tire wear particulates talking point is the result of oil industry astroturfing. The brake dust thing especially is actually better on electric cars, since regenerative braking reduces the amount of brake wear.
Higher weight and higher torque means tires wear faster on EVs. That’s physics, and the theory is backed up by real world evidence.
The flatter torque curve (peak torque on electric cars is usually very comparable to ICE) is irrelevant, unless you are a shitty driver who treats the gas pedal like a two position switch.
If you were really concerned about higher vehicle weight, trucks are much worse so let’s start there
Trucks are typically carrying tons of goods (except those awful LTL cases where the 50’ trailer is carrying one pallet)
Cars (mostly SUVs these days) are usually just carrying 80kg of spongy meat.
Those are not even the same levels of utility
EVs are about 20% heavier than the equivalent gas powered car and offer the same utility.
Full sized pickup trucks are 50-100% heavier than cars, are the most common vehicle in most of the US, and is “ usually just carrying 80kg of spongy meat.”. They are usually exactly the same levels of utility, plus don’t have any environmental benefits
Yeah, it also applies there. It’s just a fact - heavier vehicles have more tire wear.
Things can be both true and irrelevant. Astroturfing highlights irrelevant things to the point of relevance so they get in the way.
Like Trump’s"feud" with Rosie O’Donnell. It exists, but means literally nothing and is just there to distract from actual conversation.
I feel it’s fairly relevant with the interest in microplastics lately.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5664766/
The average difference between EV and a gas car is around 300 to 400 kg. With an average weight of a small car being around 1500-1700 kg, and an electric variant of the same car being 1800-2000 kg, the difference is basically nothing. It’s, like, two large dudes. And that’s smaller car, the difference in big SUVs becomes almost negligible. It’s so nothing, especially compared to all the particles EVs don’t emit, the only reason we keep talking about is astroturfed bullshit from the conservative car manufacturers. It’s from the same playbook as wanting to get rid of wind turbines because sometimes they kill birds.
400kg makes a huge difference. Road damage increases proportional to the fourth power of axle load, which is like 2x in your example.
For the smallest car on the market it’s around 20%. It rapidly gets smaller the bigger the vehicle is. Exchanging lack of tailpipe emissions for less than 20% increase in road damage is nobrainer.
Uno reverse : I really dont think these are all or nothing criticisms. If anything, you’re engaging in that. Just because we criticize the proposed progress doesn’t mean we oppose it. You have no room for nuance in your criticism of our criticism!
Its because EVs are being marketed as a green solution, not a stepping stone. If a car must exist it might as well be electric but we should be asking how do we reduce the cars that exist and their frequency of use. Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.
I highly, highly doubt it. I lived in the country with pretty good transit, but exclusively ICE cars. It was not good, not at all. Better than cars only, still not good. Good transit doesn’t eliminate cars, unfortunately, and always breathing car emissions is bad, very, very, very bad.
The only solution is to do both. Right now I live in the city with very good public transport, but still sprawling car infrastructure, the only difference is, there is a robust car emission rules, so most cars around are EVs or hybrids. It’s so, so, so much better than the first variation, it’s not even close.
I would prefer city getting rid of most of the car-centric infrastructure still, but now I have a chance to see this day, and not die of a lung cancer at a ripe age of 55
This choice you’ve presented is extremely misleading. The build out of electrified public transportation and the shift from ICE to EV cars are not in any way related choices. If the government chooses to build more public transportation, that has no effect on whether or not EVs replace ICE cars.
The government building transit would effect the number of people who need to rely on a car.
Which is good, but still has nothing to do with what the remaining cars are powered by. There’s no reason why it has to be “transit+ICE” instead of “transit+EV”.
My point is that we should be making the most impactful changes we can to fight climate change and environmental destruction, which means subsidies, government investments, and tax breaks are better spent on transit, density, or active transport than on EV infrastructure/incentives
And the most impactful change I can make is purchasing an EV.
Since I already vote for officials who support all of those issues there is no impactful change because the alignment is already there.
There are locally impactful actions that I can participate in but none that will have the same impact as my personal choices.
The most impactful choices I could make are all illegal. The majority of them being some form of demestic terrorism.
Even here in a walkable town with good transit, I still need a car so an EV is what I can do.