this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
384 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

60107 readers
3483 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

1.8 Million Barrels of Oil a Day Avoided from Electric Vehicles::Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! We love covering electric ... [continued]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

How the fuck do you people think these electric vehicles are powered?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Depends where you are. In the US as a whole (so this varies heavily state-to-state), about 60% fossil fuels

In France, about 6% fossil fuels.

And it looks like even if the car is charged partly by fossil fuels the power generation for an electric car is cleaner than running a gas car in 95% of the world.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I appreciate you coming with the numbers.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I would have to dig to find it, but I remember reading years ago in a Car and Driver article that EV's powered by even the dirtiest coal power plants will still return around 30 MPGe, which is better than most vehicles on the road today.

Granted that article was from before the Hummer EV, so I'm sure that number will have changed somewhat.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

i would love for the United States to build more nuclear power plants and get this percentage down!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I dont understand. What is your point? Is it that having an extra 1.8 million barrels burned is good? Is it that Power Plant + ICE cars is cleaner than Power Plant - ICE cars? Hiw is it that you people keep getting hopping mad every time progress is made? What do you gain? Why do your feefees get hurt? What is the big "gotcha" that you keep trying to make?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Don't bother. Reading, logic and facts are not their strong point.

As you've seen they just lie and say something back which you clearly didn't mean and continue to live in the ignorance bubble they have created for themselves.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It does no good to try to explain anyway. When you explain that mining all the shit that goes into making the batteries for these cars, it completely offsets whatever exaggerated gain they make. Not only that, but the incredible human cost as well. But you just go ahead and feel good about yourself and your shitty "green" cars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Today I learned Iron and steel grows on trees

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apparently only materials for electric cars are mined

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

let's just continue to exploit entire continents of people though right? i mean if it makes YOUR neighborhood "green" it's ok to ignore all that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since all you're doing is whining like a little hippie shit and presenting nothing to support your case then no I don't give a fuck about anything you have to say about it. So far all I know is that you're just making this up as you go along. You really are awful at this, and it's no surprise that you don't get any support.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like you need to go huff some exhaust

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Telling someone to go kill themselves... stay classy Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, telling someone to further indulge in their fossil fuel fetish.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

No EVs! More exhaust!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Electricity usually.

In all seriousness, even if the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, that's still preferable to burning them locally via internal combustion in a car's engine.

The pollution is one place, so is easier to manage/capture and a power plant is much more efficient than your car can hope to be, actually reducing overall usage and pollution for the same energy output.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

oh so pollution is ok as long as it's not in your backyard and happening in a confined locale... got it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No dumbass, that's very clearly not what I said nor what I was implying, and you know that.

If the pollution is being produced in one area then we can actually capture and reduce the overall level of pollution which is produced.

However, if we continue to use ICE cars then pollution will be scattered all over the place and there will be more of it as cars are less efficient than power stations.

And in the mean time, we can of course transition over to renewables. The EV will happily accept power from both.

See how that works?

Try thinking just a little bit before responding. Legit felt like I was talking to a petulant child just there

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's VERY clearly exactly what you said and i quote... "The pollution is one place, so is easier to manage/capture"

If it's so easy to capture why care if we're burning coal or natural gas? just capture it. just control it. it's so easy right? how is the burning of fossil fuels even "captured" at a rate that is even viable?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But I didn't say:

pollution is ok as long as it's not in your backyard and happening in a confined locale...

Nor did I imply otherwise. Stop lying you colossal piece of shit.

I am saying that there would be less pollution overall running EVs which are charged by fossil fueled power stations compared to running ICE cars for the reasons I have already clearly explained and I see other commentators have already attempted to explain to you.

It is overall a better solution. If we magically waved a magic wand and swapped every ICE on the road with an EV it would be overall better for everyone, even if the power source was from burning stuff to make it

And yes, having power stations, which are usually not in dense residential areas is better as less people are breathing in the smoke at high concentrations.

And those are the facts. It's really simple if you actually read all of what I fucking wrote. Idiot.

It still wouldn't be a proper long term solution. I'm not saying that.

Do you understand now or are you going to keep ignoring the very simple point?

It must be so nice living in your level of ignorance and willfully completely ignoring literally half of the points being presented to you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does it always work for you to just try and insult your way to making a point? You've lost all credibility if you can't make a point without doing so. I've not once called you a name, insulted your intelligence in any way, yet you think this is a acceptable way to not only debate a topic, but win an argument. I pity not only you personally, but those around you that have to put up with this behavior on an every day basis. On to your points.

If you were to snap your fingers and make all internal combustion engines into electric vehicles, it would overwhelmingly overload our current grid. To compensate, you'd need to build many more powerplants and burn much more fuels to not only take up the slack just for vehicles, but for everyday household use as well. This would pollute even more. By adding the numerous new power plants, you'd have those be closer to neighborhoods than they are now. It's a simple numbers game. One thing arguments like yours never seem to take into account is cause and effect. You seem to be completely ok with more pollution and raping of our environment as long as it's not right there staring you in the face. You're seemingly ok with exploiting an entire continent's worth of people just so you don't see some gasses escape a vehicle in front of your quaint home.

Really, I still don't understand why you think I'm mischaracterizing what you've said because you've gone ahead and reiterated it here AGAIN. If it makes you so incredibly angry to read what you've written, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror and try thinking all the way through your ideal situations. I don't know how else to put it. You've admitted TWICE in this reply that you're ok with pollution as long as it's not near your home. I'm not lying about anything here. I'm simply restating what you're saying.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Does it always work for you to just try and insult your way to making a point?

You started it. I just returned the favour and was more overt.

You've lost all credibility if you can't make a point without doing so. I've not once called you a name, insulted your intelligence in any way,

More lies. You very clearly said that I said something I did not say or insinuate. This was a very clear and deliberate act.

yet you think this is a acceptable way to not only debate a topic, but win an argument.

Again, you started it.

I pity not only you personally, but those around you that have to put up with this behavior on an every day basis

Take a look in the mirror.

To compensate, you'd need to build many more powerplants and burn much more fuels to not only take up the slack just for vehicles, but for everyday household use as well. This would pollute even more.

No, it would be less pollution. As I've already explained. Power stations pollute less than ICE cars for the same energy output.

The fictional situation I described would be less pollution

Again: read what I said.

By adding the numerous new power plants, you'd have those be closer to neighborhoods than they are now.

No reason that has to be the case.

You seem to be completely ok with more pollution and raping of our environment as long as it's not right there staring you in the face.

I did not say that.

I specifically said it would be less pollution. Which part of this are you not understanding?

The entire continent would be better off as there would be less pollution.

Which part of that is so difficult for your tiny mind to understand? How are you struggling to comprehend this very basic point?

Everyone else I have spoken to about this has understood it very easily. You are the only one whl struggles with it

You're seemingly ok with exploiting an entire continent's worth of people just so you don't see some gasses escape a vehicle in front of your quaint home.

Another lie.

I've put my money where my mouth is. I have a fairly large solar installation. I'm getting a heat pump installed. My gas will be cut off soon and my car is an EV which is charged either by my solar panels or my grid connection which is 100% green (according to my supplier)

Twice in as many paragraphs you've just made up stuff about me as a thinly vieled insult. Something you claim is beneath and you "feel sorry" for me for doing.

You are massive hypocrite. The only difference is that I overtly called you a cunt.

Really, I still don't understand why you think I'm mischaracterizing what you've said

Because you are. And the record clearly shows that. To which I've explained multiple times but funnily enough you never acknowledge what I actually said.

because you've gone ahead and reiterated it here AGAIN.

Because I've attempted no less than three times to explain it.

Sadly I cannot make you understand the very basic point.

That's on you, not me.

One more time:

EVs being powered by fossil fulled power stations would be overall better for the environment compared to ICE cars and EVs not existing as there would be less pollution overall.

I am not saying this is the ideal situation. We should still transition to renewables

If it makes you so incredibly angry to read what you've written, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror and try thinking all the way through your ideal situations.

Hypocrisy is a strong point for yourself it seems. Shame logic isn't.

You've admitted TWICE in this reply that you're ok with pollution as long as it's not near your home.

Nope. I specifically said the exact opposite. I shall once again state the the overall pollution would be lower!

Yet again you have lied about what I said and the point I was making.

I'm not lying about anything here.

The record here says otherwise.

And this is why I'm insulting you: because you deserve it. You lie again and again about my very clear intent. So I'm calling you a cunt. Because you deserve it.

I can see you did the exact same thing to another commenter in this thread.

You are the problem. Not us.

It must be wonderful to just ignore half of what is said to you and continue to live in your bubble of ignorance.

If you reply with another pack of lies, I shall simply block you. I have a feeling you won't be able to help yourself as you'll want the "last word" but I won't waste any more time on you if you continue on this idiotic route. Moron.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You obviously have a VERY limited understanding of physics. Just because you WANT something to be the way you SAY it's going to be, absolutely doesn't meant that's the way it is. If that were true, there'd be no need for the trans movement.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Someone's big mad.