this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
554 points (93.8% liked)

Technology

58108 readers
3888 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Peppycito 44 points 9 months ago (91 children)

I would like to buy an electric car but I will not because;

  1. I don't have a garage.
  2. I live in a very wintery climate and don't trust the battery to take it/don't want to heat a battery
  3. The closest chargers are at least 50 km away in other towns
  4. My house has 60 amp service (upgrading that is on the todo list, but it's a long list)
  5. I don't trust the battery to last longer than the life of the lease
[–] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago (53 children)

Most of those fears aren't completely valid anymore.

  1. You can park it outside.
  2. winter gets you less mileage but not the end of the world, some of the fastest growing EV markets are cold countries.
  3. You might be surprised, a lot of grocery stores and even workplaces have some basic charging capabilities. Plus you can charge at home.
  4. If you have an electric dryer you can charge your car overnight, just don't do both together.
  5. Batteries will outlast any lease, if you're looking to get 10-15 years out of a car that would be understandable, but if you're leasing it won't be a problem.
[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (36 children)

Why is everybody so erect for EVs? They save you gas and some maintenance, but that's about it. They increase tire wear for sure, and weigh a heck of a lot more which wears the roads down quicker (roads wear with the cube of weight). They use less gasoline at the expanse of the poor third-world countries which front the environmental cost of mining and battery production, not to mention their archaic worker's rights.

In 20 years, we'll realize that EVs were probably about as bad as gasoline vehicles--what we should be focusing on is public transportation and updated city design to reduce our need to travel in the first place.

Sure, a split of electric and gasoline vehicles is beneficial, but they're not the environmental panacea they're being pushed as. So please keep the whole picture in mind when you're telling people to suffer and sacrifice to give up a cheap, convenient gasoline vehicle.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Change needs to be made somewhere. Gas isn't the answer, so sticking with it... Kinda stupid. The "saves on maintenance" part is actually a really big deal that was just glossed over. You don't need oil changes. You don't have a transmission. You don't need radiator fluid. With regenerative braking, you're not wearing down brake pads anywhere near as much. Not to mention the gas emissions reduction. These are all highly toxic materials that are not being consumed and distributed into the atmosphere. And which mines are being operated in third world countries? If you're referring to lithium, the largest producers are Australia, the USA, Chile and China. You know, some of the wealthiest countries on the planet.... And Chile.

Understandably, hand waving "public transit" as the answer does make sense. Designing urban centres in such a way to make public transit preferable makes sense. The problem is that these changes are slow. In 20 years, you'll have a few new suburbs built with these practices in mind. The majority of everything else will still be the same, because it's not feasible to bulldoze existing infrastructure to replace it. It'll need to be aged out, and climate change isn't gonna stop for 100 years and wait for us to get our road placement juuuuuust right. Further, adding more public transit is expensive, with a high up front cost, plus a high maintenance cost ongoing. Unless you dump enough money into it such that it completely replaces the need for private vehicles, there will always be private vehicles regardless.

But the greatest benefit to EV is the pollution is centralized. Making vehicles will always suck for the environment, full stop, but EVs allow the production and majority of the pollution to occur at a relatively small number of places, which can be contained much easier.

To be absolutely clear, I don't disagree with your point, but the answer won't come overnight, and we're on a time crunch. We need lots of innovation, and early adoption of incremental gains. One day, public transit and better cities will be part of the solution. But until then, we need solutions, and this is the direction to progress.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not against change, and I encourage it. But We also can't put all of our eggs in one basket. I am glad people are buying EVs, but we can't let a market for an inherently disposable item dominate over another option (ICE vehicles) that will outlast an EV a substantial proportion of the time. The automotive producers are licking their lips at the thought of getting us all into vehicles that will be be effectively unusable in 10 or 15 years--batteries age with use and also time, unlike steel and aluminum.

I am an environmental engineer and I have worked on remediation projects for oil and gas, as well as other types of natural resource exploitation such as mines. The damage caused by mining metals from the ground is extreme, and it will last decades, if not forever. "Centralizing" pollution isn't a good thing--we're best off distributing our pollution so that the Earth can have a fighting chance of repairing it piece by piece, which may never happen in areas that have undergone certain types of mining and other industry. Look at an old oil and gas site, and you would never even know it was there after 10 or 50 years. CO2 is a problem, for sure, and so is methane, but methane degrades in the atmosphere after just over a decade. Mining causes damage to the air, ground water and surface water, and to the nearby wildlife. Look up Tar Creek in Oklahoma, the Questa Moly Mine in New Mexico, and do you remember what happened in Colorado when the EPA accidentally released an entire mine full of acid drainage into the nearby river? Nothing but dead marine life for miles and miles. Mines take some of our most beautiful natural areas and destroy them.

If you think modern mines are going to circumvent all of these issues, they aren't. They're going to have accidents and cause damage just the same as the fossil fuel industry--some ways, even worse.

[–] Peppycito 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The automotive producers are licking their lips at the thought of getting us all into vehicles that will be be effectively unusable in 10 or 15 years-

I see it like that too. The enshittification of the automobile. I am not putting my money down to bet against that just yet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If this take was true the headline would be the opposite. They're not living their lips, they're trying to not sell any because they want money from expensive ICE maintenance.

[–] Peppycito 1 points 9 months ago

That's on the dealer end. The manufacturer end wants to keep selling cars. They can both be happening at the same time.

load more comments (34 replies)
load more comments (50 replies)
load more comments (87 replies)