I’ve seen a lot of posts here on Lemmy, specifically in the “fuck cars” communities as to how Electric Vehicles do pretty much nothing for the Climate, but I continue to see Climate activists everywhere try pushing so, so hard for Electric Vehicles.

Are they actually beneficial to the planet other than limiting exhaust, or is that it? or maybe exhaust is a way bigger problem?

  • gibmiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Good luck convincing people who live outside dense population zones to bike 3 hours to work. And “just move” is not an option. Think rents and home prices are bad now? If everyone moved to cities imagine the price gouging.

    E: for the record I’m all about public transportation, it’s just unrealistic to think we completely ditch cars. They are too useful so EVs make sense going forward

    • ⲇⲅⲇ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The problem is not the people who live far from decent public transport but those people who live in the city and uses it every day, on city, all roads are always for vehicles like cars and trucks, instead to be for pedestrian and for bikes. On bad connected places a car can make sense but most of the people in city have cars when they rarely go outside, they could rent a car and would be cheaper for them for those days they need to move away. About EV, I think we still have the same problem, but the waste it generates keeps on ground instead flying on air.

    • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      No reasonable people are expecting someone that lives rural to bike into town. Going between rural homes and cities is one of the places where personal cars are unavoidable. Ideally, they drive to the edge of town and park next to a subway station that they take most of the rest of the way.

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I agree, but people still need to get to commuter stations. Plus take towns the size of 400 people who commute 40 miles to work, they aren’t getting a train stop for decades, maybe longer. EVs are a good solution for them now.

  • Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    It is the nuclear power vs fossil fuels vs renewables debate all over again. Nuclear is much greener than fossil fuels but comes with its own challenges regarding cost, safety and waste disposal. Renewable energy like solar, wind and hydro are better than nuclear but the point is that nuclear and renewables are not enemies rather they are allies who have to band together to beat fossil fuels.

    Public transport is like renewables, the best solution but one which needs time because years of underdevelopment and under-funding means that they are not as developed as they should be.

    EVs are like nuclear. Not the perfect solution but have the capability to serve areas and use cases that public transport (renewables) can’t. There are issues like them costing more than the alternatives and that the disposal of waste produced by both is a problem with an unsatisfactory solution.

    ICE vehicles are like fossil fuel energy plants. The worst of the worst with regards to their effect on the planet. Their only advantage is that they offer convenience.

    So I think we should stop the narrative that EVs(nuclear) are bad because the are not the best solution at hand but rather combine increasing adoption of both EV(nuclear) and public transport (renewables) to combat the true threat that is ICE(fossil fuel energy plants).

    • konst@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nuclear power is alright if you disregard it turning two cities into wastelands for a century.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Even looking only at the healthcare costs of the exhaust-induced unhealth, you see massive economic benefit.

    It’s the old star-topology vs decentralized-mesh-topology question…

    It is much more efficient to have 1 giant windmill, rather-than a zillion little ones.

    It is much more efficient to have electric-trams than the number of cars required to move the same number of people.

    As for electric-cars vs internal-combustion-engine-cars, the relocation-of-cost from always buying gasoline, to just plugging-in at night, is something that many people have openly adored.

    The Engineering Explained yt channel bluntly stated that if you’re in the city, it’s a no-brainer.

    Rurally, or in the arctic, you can be screwed, however.

    I’ve no idea what the equation is for how much exhaust per mile-driven is produced, between

    • star-topology fuel-burning electric-grid powered cars
    • mesh/distributed-topology of the same number of I.C.E. cars

    but it wouldn’t surprise me if it is significantly more efficient, just due to getting the maintenance up to industrial standards.

    ( sloppy maintenance costs, and some companies push sloppy maintenance, not changing oil frequently enough, e.g. in order to produce engine-wear, forcing required-replacement.

    Some yt mechanics call-out this practice. )

    _ /\ _