• Farmington Hills officials are fuming over a glut of unsold Cybertrucks being stored in the city.
  • Tesla has been parking the EVs at a shopping center earmarked for major redevelopment.
  • Officials say the electric vehicles violate zoning codes and are warning the property owner.
  • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    8 days ago

    God the environmental damage caused by making all these batteries, only to be used in a cyber truck and dumped in a car park.

    Remember when Elon was pretending to be saving the environment, well now he isn’t.

    • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 days ago

      Batteries can be recycled, reused or repurposed. It’s nowhere near as damaging as drilling for/refining/shipping/burning oil and we decided we are perfectly okay with that.

      • utopiah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 days ago

        Batteries can be recycled, reused or repurposed. It’s nowhere near as damaging as drilling for/refining/shipping/burning oil

        Why is the alternative to an EV SUV a combustion engine SUV? Why isn’t cycling and public transport?

        I’m not saving ICEs are good and EV are bad but that maybe… both aren’t great anyway, especially when actual alternatives that make people healthier do exist.

        • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Biking doesn’t always work well in the us because shit is spread out further.

          • utopiah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            Anything else but driving doesn’t work well in the US because the “way of life” is indeed car centric. It will never change without infrastructure, including but not limited to bike lanes. Large distances are possible with (electric) bike but this at least needs to be safe.

            So… yes I’m not advocating for somebody leaving the middle of absolute nowhere to give up on their cars. This is not even about cities (as the article mentions a parking lot I assume it’s next or even inside a city).

            No, my point instead is to question the false dichotomy.

            • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              I agree we shouldn’t have set things up as we did but it’s done and there is no way I’m biking what would be a 40 minute drive to microcenter.

              • utopiah@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                I did spend last week biking 45min somewhere and back (so 1h30) for 4 days in a row. It’s not for everyone … but not only it’s feasible but (and I know it will sound crazy to some) I actually did enjoy it. On the last day I even did the last trip with a new friend, chatting the entire ride.

                Again, I’m not arguing that anybody should do that, or have fun doing, only that’s it not impossible.

      • innermachine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        I thought it was widely accepted that lithium mining is far more harmful to the environment than drilling for oil, and that the hope was that not burning oil/gas we offset the mining (to the point if u drive ur electric car x miles it’s cleaner overall than if u drive an ICE vehicle). Do you have information that states otherwise?

        • PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Oil spills are far worse for the environment than mining could be. Also, electric cars keep air pollution in cities down. Not saying there is zero environmental impact but mining is not nearly as bad as fossil fuels can be, and same could be said for nuclear as well.

        • Nalivai@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 days ago

          Lithium is pretty stable. Those dumbtrucks will rot there for some time, then got reposessed and eventually moved to a recycling plant, and almost all of the lithium will eventually be used for something useful.

      • GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        The lithium mining process is laborious, dangerous, and releases radioactive elements into groundwater and into the air as mine tailings. Not to mention, most of Earth’s lithium reserves are in Chile, Bolivia, and Rwanda. With Western investors backing corrupt national governments, this means that exploitative labor (read: slavery) is the primary means of extraction.

        It is, in comparison to other extraction methods, literally just as bad.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          Mexico has a giant deposit but they insist on silly things like environmental regulations.

        • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Actually lithium isn’t the long term plan, it’s just the plan for today. Sodium is the long term. But huge lithium deposits exists in the US and China too.

            • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              Dude hydrogen is a bait and switch. We’ve had hydrogen engine tech forever. As for the source, you CAN get it from water after putting in more energy into it than you get out of it, or you can just refine it from oil. Guess what the plan has always been?

              Hydrogen is just a way to greenwash big oil.

              • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 days ago

                there are modern ways of doing it they’re pretty efficient from what I’ve been reading using natural gas and water or electrolysis but I’m no scientist so I’m not going to try to explain it here I think maybe you should look into some more modern methods than what you’re talking about.

                • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Natural gas is not green. Not even close. It’s just more convenient. Electrolysis cannot magically be made more efficient here either. It takes a certain amount of energy to break those chemical bonds and you can’t magically break those bonds using less energy. The amount of energy you get from burning that hydrogen is less than what you put in to break those bonds via electrolysis.

                  I actually do know what I’m talking about here.

      • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        Agreed. The person you’re responding to is using the same logic as “wind turbines kill birds”, “EVs run on FF electricity”, etc. Anyone trying to convince you to let perfection get in the way of progress is almost certainly being disingenuous, or at best has been talked into it by someone who was.

    • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      EVs were never about saving the environment. It does so much damage making a new EV. If companies wanted to save the environment they would have invested in refurbishing and updating older used cars.

      EDIT: Sad how many ignorant people are down voting this without even attempting to look up the environmental cost of making a brand new car loading with rare earth minerals. While destroying a slightly older car that’s already been built and whose environmental impact has already been dealt with and would best be put to use rather than sit in a junk yard for 50 years.

      Too many corporate boot lickers believing the car companies based on nothing more than “Green” buzz words.

      • innermachine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        The most environmentally friendly thing you can do as a car owner is just keep the oldest car u have alive as long as possible. Cash for lunkers wasn’t about getting people in cleaner cars, it was about subsidizing companies so they could sell more while destroying perfectly good vehicles. This shredded the used car market and we are paying for it now. Literally. If you need to get a new car anyways, sure an ev or hybrid might be the way. But keeping a stinky old diesel running, while it may seem counterintuitive, is the cleaner thing to do. What we wmit driving pails in comparison to the production pollution associated with all these throw away cars.