this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
53 points (100.0% liked)

Environment

3926 readers
1 users here now

Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).

See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

these of course come with their own tradeoffs, but you take what you can get

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eveninghere 12 points 7 months ago (4 children)

But how much of that is simply shifted outside? Manufacturing batteries, generating electricity etc.

[–] epyon22@programming.dev 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Even in areas that use coal you use less overall emissions within the lifetime of the vehicle

https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM?si=l7nepxiZqoWhZrpU

[–] eveninghere 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No, my question was, how much of the 2-3% yearly reduction within Bay Area is just shifting the emission to elsewhere?

[–] sqgl 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah if we factor in the source of the power we might be looking at a not-so-exciting statistic.

However it does put us into position to take advantage of the inevitable greening of the grid. It would be foolish to wait until it is completely greened before beginning the transition to EV's.

[–] sonori 20 points 7 months ago

Most of it is pure reduction rather than replacement. The region is pretty good at using wind and hydro for evening power but more to the point, it is hard to get across just how much that 4.6tons of co2 an average car puts out in a year.

It’s also worth noting that 4.6 tons is just tailpipe, and that it is in addition to the emissions from delivering that fuel to the pump or in manufacturing the car itself, and that thouse additional emissions alone are more than the entire lifetime emissions of an EV fed on the US grid, most of which are from generation.

Put all that together with the SF grid being less carbon intensive, and i’d guess that anywhere from 75% to 90% of those emissions are just outright gone period.

It would be even better if it was even more a move to bikes and mass transit of course, but in this case it actually is a notable drop in emissions and not just greenwashing.

[–] Midnitte 12 points 7 months ago

Most car pollution is via use, not production. EVs are cleaner, much cleaner - regardless of grid production.

To be precise, more than 85% of a gas-powered vehicle's lifetime emissions come from using the car, not from building the car. That's according to researchers at Argonne National Laboratory. And that means the new EV, despite its manufacturing costs, will be cleaner over time. - Source

It makes sense if you think about it, what's more likely to be more efficient (and hence cleaner), burning fossil fuels in a large facility, or in a bunch of your tiny engines? As we shift to a cleaner grid, that inefficiency gets larger.

Obviously, if we can shift to more public transit, we can get even cleaner, but any replacement is helping.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 7 months ago

One of those requires much more energy than the other