Clarkson and others always ask the question, ‘where does the electricity come from?’
There are other stats that say it’s only better after a certain amount of miles driven or that the Lithium quarries produce significant amount of pollution.
What and where do these claims come from, how true are they and how false are they?
In: Engineering
Thing is that you can produce electricity from nuclear, wind, hydro-electric, tidal, solar, geothermal.
You can’t use fossil fuels in a clean way.
All the other reasons they claim apply equally to ice vehicles.
I think an important part of this discussion is the fact that all the pollution that happens from electric cars happens far outside the cities, while combustion engine cars pollute the air around them everywhere they go.
[removed]
Even if it were a diesel generator, one big engine is more efficient than hundreds or thousands of little engines.
There are plenty of in-depth reporting on this. Yes, they’re greener as long as you keep it for more than a year or so. Takes more global-warming-energy to make one than an ICE car, but operating it takes far less. Even with coal fired electricity.
>Clarkson and others always ask the question, ‘where does the electricity come from?’
Considering that Clarkson [also spread long-disproven propaganda against the Prius](https://np.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/2kou6r/does_anyone_know_what_happens_to_the_batteries/clnlkue/), he’s not exactly an authority on hybrids and EVs.
>What and where do these claims come from, how true are they and how false are they?
There are several claims to evaluate here, which I’ll take in order:
1. Lithium quarries produce significant amounts of pollution – Not in the context of EVs. Lithium mining [accounts for less than 2.3% of an EV’s overall environmental impact](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es903729a)
2. It’s only better after a certain amount of miles driven – True. As EVs have a larger manufacturing carbon footprint than ICE vehicles but a lower operational carbon footprint, they take time to break even on that manufacturing delta. The question is over where that breakeven point is – for instance, [the Union of Concerned Scientists](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf) pegs that breakeven point at 21,300 miles.
the fact that people don’t immediately grasp and accept the clear and obvious fact that EVs are better for the planet is, I think, a testament to the nonstop campaign of the political right-wingers to supress, distort, cover up, or outright lie about the facts surrounding the manufacture and consumption of fossil fuels. they quite literally prefer wiping out the human species (as long as it doesn’t Bakken while they’re around) than being responsible and ethical.
Yes, something is burned somewhere. But I trust the emission standards of a few regulated power plants over millions of unmaintained vehicles.
With 10k miles on the odometer gas cars are greener. With 100k miles on the odometer electric cars are much greener.
Electric car production is more carbon intensive because of the minerals required for the battery. But even if you use a dirty power source like coal to charge your car electric production at scale is FAR more efficient than an internal combustion engine; so through the life of the car an electric car will be more environmentally friendly. If you can use something like wind or solar to charge it then it will be even better.
On top of all these good response I just want to add: For the love of God don’t take advice from fucking Jeremy Clarkson of all people. The man is entertaining but he’s a goddamn moron.
Latest Answers