this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
91 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1454 readers
101 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I like to think of it as "better than".

They're not perfect, but they're better than what people might do instead.
I could swap my older car for a second hand EV, which would be an environmental improvement.
The current car does 50-ish MPG, about 1.5 miles per KWH. An electric would do 4+miles per KWH, which going in reverse is 100+MPG.

A bigger improvement might come from me getting the bus/train/bike everywhere, which is where the fuck cars argument comes from.
But I am disorganised, a bit lazy, and I don't want to shepherd 4 people onto the train, paying ยฃ150 to go 100 miles.

So for me, slightly better is better than no improvement at all.
The energy used can be green, depending on what the national grid is up to that day. But it's always more green than burning dinosaurs.
And the reduction in brake dust is always a nice plus.

[โ€“] Silentiea@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

which going in reverse is 100+MPG.

Holy cow, why don't people drive in reverse all the time?

/s

[โ€“] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

Because you have to go forward before you can go backward.

/s

[โ€“] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How does one convert MPG to KWh? Electricity generation takes numerous forms with notably different efficiencies converting input to output...

[โ€“] maynarkh@feddit.nl 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it should be miles-per-kilowatt-hour, or kilowatt-hours / litres per hundred kilometers, like most of the world uses it.

[โ€“] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I kinda agree, lots of different formats in every direction, lots of dividing 1 by numbers to compare things.
One site lists Wh/mi, another Mi/KWh, manufacturer site only lists the range based on speed.
Then comparing it to figures for countries using metric distance, customary sized gallons for ICE, and L/100KM...It gets fiddly to make direct comparisons!

On the efficiency of generation, I guess it's open to the reader to apply their own modifier.
I'd be aiming to charge the car using private solar as much as possible which would drive it down.
National Grid emissions in the UK last year were about 217g/KWh on average. Even using grid the whole time, the emissions would be easily halved for me.

Edit: There is a suitably lengthy wikipedia page on MPGe. Having skimmed it, MPGe doesn't take into account upstream efficiency. While well-to-wheel gives a clearer picture, I can understand why for a simple metric MPGe does not. Especially since the primary function will be users gauging cost, and the electricity source should gradually improve over time.