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

      Right is possible if economy is local. Left is actual real life because of capitalism needs bigger markets in in small areas for maximing profits.

  • Naz@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Disagree on inefficient.

    Internal combustion engines in standard small size convert 19.65-22.1% of their energy from thermal to kinetic.

    The ratio of electron throughput from battery to electric motor can be as LOW as 88% but hovers between 92-98% efficiency.

    Even if you had a fuel cell in the back, running electric motors quintuples (5×) the standard energy efficiency owing to the principle of energy quality type preservation in conversion (High to High vs Low to High):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transformation

    So 1 electric car = 4 less carbon liquid fuelled cars worth of pollution.

    What you’re actually looking for is:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

    Jevon’s Paradox states that improved efficiency of something will only increase its use, and in this case, electric cars will in fact, correlate to car use, and increased mineral demands.

    This is a problem you cannot solve endemic to humanity.

    • Faresh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think the point is that compared to public transport when transporting a large number of people, they are inefficient.

    • Nobilmantis@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think you missed the meaning of inefficency on this matter…

      While it is undeniable that electric cars have a better supply-to-engine energy efficency than combustion cars, you can understand that they are equiparated in the meme as “equally bad” if you think outside of the box labelled “rubber wheels on high friction asphalt transporting usually a single individual”.

      Compare that with a tram or a train, transporting multiple passengers with the same electric engine but also steel-on-steel friction on the wheels and the difference between an ICE and EV vehicle becomes a mere approximation error; god I can do the math for you if you want, but I bet even a disel bus with a lot of passengers has a better efficency/passenger ratio than an EV.

      So 1 electric car = 4 less carbon liquid fuelled cars worth of pollution.

      Also I think this is a bit misleading: if I buy an EV this won’t magically destroy 4 (where is this number from?) already existing carbon liquid cars, it merely means you avoided adding 1 other ICE car to the total.

      • eluvinar@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        box labelled “rubber wheels on high friction asphalt transporting usually a single individual”.

        so, a box I keep my bike in? :D

  • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Several years ago, I considered an EV, got sticker shock, and slowly backed away. I wound up with an ebike instead. What happened with the latter is it turned out I really loved that thing and rode it far more frequently than I would have imagined. It’s not a total car replacement, to be fair, but it handles most trips.

    Today, EVs are still expensive, though there are more options and a bit more competition on price. But to make them worthwhile, you need to drive a lot so that you get back some of that initial investment in savings with charging vs fuelling. This means I am not really the demographic for EVs anymore, since I don’t drive enough. It’s so weird… I guess I’ll just keep that 2006 ICE around until it dies, which might be awhile yet considering how slowly the mileage is ticking up.

      • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I live in GA outside of Atlanta and rent is already tough. I’ve been to cities with not exactly amazing but serviceable public transportation (various parts of greater NYC and Chicago) and loved them. I’ve tried to use busses elsewhere, though it often meant 3 hours wasted to go to work, with similar time wasted after (hourly buss schedules and multiple transfers).

        I have an electric car now, work from home, and try to avoid having to drive much, but there isn’t much more I can afford to do atm. An bike would be nice but even that’ll take money I’m still recovering, and some places I go to even just a couple times a month has no public transportation. I’d love if it did, but I have to use EV for now.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think when most people decry EVs, we’re not talking about individual EV owners but the system which forces basically everyone to move around by personal vehicle. Sure, they’ll be the occasional person who says, “I bike 28km to and from work at a very physical job where I often work overtime. I have to share the road with traffic. I don’t know why everyone can’t commute by bike,” (this was the gist of a comment I read on reddit years ago). However, most people understand that changes can’t just be personal responsibility.

          With the information we have about your life, it sounds like you made a reasonable decision. If you can continue to be mindful about the decisions you make and advocate for a better world when you can, I think you’re doing a great job!

    • 420stalin69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not really. At all. Like they’re barely even a bandaid.

      The issue is a car weighs a couple of tons and it’s being used to move a person who weighs around 100kg.

      It’s massively inefficient use of energy.

      Even in some fantasy world where the energy used to charge the batteries is all renewable - not even close to reality but let’s pretend - all that lithium and other precious earths are still an environmental disaster.

      The answer is mass transit and lower mass vehicles. A lifestyle change is actually required and the thing is it wouldn’t even make people less happy, just that change is so fucking scary for some reason.

      Walkable cities are a dream lifestyle and an electric scooter in a walkable city is outstanding. Fuck urban sprawl.

      • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        EVs are not limited to personal vehicles though. I absolutely agree on developing mass transit, be it rail or other, and preventing urban sprawl.

        But cars (personal vehicles) and other vehicles will always exist (at least for the foreseeable future) and people will still need to haul stuff (garbage collection, artisans, deliveries, movers etc…).

        I’d take an electric garbage collection truck over a ICE one for instance. It’s anecdotal but there are roadworks in my neighborhood, and most of the machinery is electric which is very nice. Electric mopeds/motorcycles are also much quieter than ICE ones. You could also electrify buses, airport equipment, port equipment, trains (the diesel ones), mining equipment, etc.

        So no, EVs are not the solution but a solution, and their development is a good thing if we want to move away from fossil fuels.

        Edit: corrected thermic with ICE

      • Floon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Fuck urban rents, how about that?

        People who give this message like everyone is just choosing to screw the environment for fun make a crapton of assumptions about the forces people face in finding a place to live.

        • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Fuck urban rents, how about that?

          Boy I wonder where we might be able to find lots and lots of space within a city for new construction to densify it.

    • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I’d call them less a solution, more an attempt at harm reduction.

      And the only things they’ll properly resolve are tailpipe emissions and idling noise. At least one of which is of no concern when dealing with the externalities of car traffic.

      If you really want to solve the environmental impact of transportation, you minimise the need for transportation. Put homes and workplaces close together, offer mass alternatives for the pairs where you really do need motorised mobility solutions, and minimise the number of situations where it’s more convenient to take a car. Ban on-street parking and heavily tax off-street parking. Need to park your car in the city? Hope you can afford to pay an arm and a leg. Oh, you can’t? Looks the Park & Ride at the train station two towns over is the nearest alternative. Don’t worry though, the trains go six times an hour and a day ticket is, like, four quid max.

      • Floon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Quid: you’re British. Great.

        You’re smaller in area than Texas. It’s a little easier for you to stay close to everything, you’re never more than 70 miles away from the sea.

        • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Hello, I’m Albertan. Stop saying this. Our governments maintain roads in between these cities every year, there is no reason they couldn’t have been train lines instead. Roads are far more expensive than many realize.

          Once upon a time, all cities were connected by train, and we ripped it all up to build roads instead. Sure, it’s going to cost money to build these up again – that’s what happens when we make a mistake, we have to pay for it in one way or another. But connecting smaller towns and cities is not the herculean impossible task that people seem to want to pretend it is.

          There ARE major urban areas in North America. People are not evenly spread out across the landmass equally. Connecting these first is obviously the goal, because that will take care of 70% of the problem already. And always remember not to make perfect the enemy of good - even if we stopped there we’d be in infinitely better shape than we were before.

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

            We’ve done a ton of that. The Acela is great, I’ve ridden it a bunch. But that kind of thing doesn’t scale as efficiently as you would hope. It can serve corridors of people, but not huge continents of hundreds of millions all that well. There are to many places to be.

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

          Look mate, if you’re going to shove the “tHe stATeS arE ToO bIG, thus wE cANNot SOlvE The transIt ProbleM” rhetoric on us, please find another place to wallow in your lack of trains while assuming car industry rhetoric as undeniable fact.

          Also, your claim has been debunked and reclarified so often that I’m not going to begin to explain just how wrong you are.

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

            You guys are all idiots. A bunch of Europeans lucked into an infrastructure that works with twice the people in half the space, and you act like it was an intentional and smarter design decision in anticipation of a climate crisis. You shipped your most insane people off your continent to become Americans, and their shitty Calvinism has made everything that has always been terrible about Northern Europe even worse.

            Now you want to act like anyone who thinks what you propose isn’t exactly easy (or democratic) is some kind of corporate fascist. Fuck off, the lot of you.

  • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Well, would be nice if we would have automatic Taxis. Less of the issues like Parking lots but still a lot of issues present.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I think that the solution is automated rail transit. Being in a dedicated place with lower likelihood of encountering people removes nearl every issue that self-driving cars have. Being automated means that 24/7 schedules are possible. If there are enough trains and high enough saturation, need for cars and even taxis is removed.

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

    Like, I get your overall point, but the whiskey to wine comparison doesn’t quite work lol.

    For starters, you’d have to drink a LOT more wine comparatively, which doesn’t translate when going from ICE to electric.

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

      It does, because the batteries for electric cars have a reliance on rare earth metals.

      Lol the downvotes are hilarious. We will not solve climate change with electric cars. Public transit in walkable communities with niche uses for cars and trucks are the only way forward.

  • thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I heard a good saying the other day: “Electric cars are a solution for the car industry.” Give me walkable cities please

    • Xenxs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I live in Scandinavia, in one of these walkable cities. Everyone has a car. Why? Because relying on public transport or walking/biking everywhere is not practical. It’s just reality.

  • Floon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This is why people hate liberals, and why liberals often migrate over to conservatism: no matter how right you are, there’s always someone happy to crap on you for not being right enough.

    Don’t shit on EVs for merely being one of many solutions that all need to be engaged with. It’s not like without EVs, so many people would be rushing to areas of greater density and riding public transit, so your message is not helpful in achieving what you want, and actively angers your allies.

    • セリャスト@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Ah yes conservatism, the famous side of rational thinking and anti-bias thoughts, such as avoiding the perfect solution bias
      Your comment having so many upvotes is disgusting

    • hyperhopper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think both sides are lacking nuance here. If you shit on people getting electric vehicles or just thinking of getting one because that’s not far enough: fuck you. But also, for people that just switched or are thinking of getting one but then see something like this and slam into reverse and say “I’m gonna support ICE cars till the day I die to spite those overly hostile woke liberals”: fuck you too.

      People should be able to take the information in a more nuanced way, and should stop swinging from extreme to extreme which has led to the current fucked state of politics

    • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The thing is you’re just not right. EVs serve to save the car, not the world.

      It’s not like without EVs, so many people would be rushing to areas of greater density and riding public transit, so your message

      Correct! Which is why you should fight cars in general, cause then that happens

      • Floon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Fuck cars?

        I hate ignorant conservatives, but you mostly can’t do much about them because they listen to no one. But progressive ignorance is something I feel compelled to correct: progressives pretend to care about things other than their own assholes.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I really have to agree that it’s posts like this that made me give up on left wing politics, in certainly not right wing but I see no hope for the left until fundermental problems are fixed which I don’t believe politics or media is capable of addressing.

      Further I am absolutely convinced a large portion of the loudest voices on climate change are so obsessed because they desperately want it to be the big doom that fucks up all the impressive things other people are achieving.

    • Mister_Rogers@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Car fires from ICE’s are magnitudes more common and cause more damage every year because of this. If you spent half a second to search this you’d find that reports indicate that per 100,000 vehicles sold in their respective powertrains in their lifetime, 25 electric cars catch fire, and 1,530 gas vehicles catch fire. While searching this, something that caught me off guard and surprised me was that hybrids are even higher, 3,475! The more you know.

  • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Honest question. Does anyone here have enough humility to understand there’s a similar checklist of things an automobile solves?

    Now it doesn’t mean it’s the right solution but particularly in North America due to lack of XYZ automobiles are king.

    It’s very easy to go “hurr durr automobiles bad” but do you understand the multitude of reasons why we use them? All the things that need to be improved or fixed before we entertain the alternatives?

    Saying this as a car owner who takes public transit far more than other car owners.

    • biddy@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes. Nobody is suggested we should ban all cars everywhere.

      Cars are incredible. I do trips to remote places all the time that would be impossible without cars. There’s no better way to transport 5 people and their gear for a week to a place that’s 100km from the nearest small town.

      But for 1 guy commuting from the suburbs to work in the city every day in their SUV? Fuck that, the system is broken to even entertain that as a possibility.

    • chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      “Does anyone here have enough humility to understand there’s a similar checklist of things an automobile solves?”

      Firstly, this feels a very confrontational way of phrasing the question. It carries with it the assumption that you are right and everyone else is wrong, which I don’t feel is a helpful way of approaching a discussion.

      Yes, of course people realise that car ownership is the only viable solution for individuals at the current time. You have engaged with a community who are passionate about and engaged in urban planning, so they are going to be more switched onto the challenges than most.

      The entire point is that on their own they are not a sustainable solution long-term. They are hugely inefficient energy and space-wise, their infrastructure causes massive damage to the communities they carve through (see this Guardian article for a breakdown of some NA case studies), and they currently cause a huge amount of environmental damage.

      So, the question becomes: how can we remove the need for car ownership? There’s a host of ideas, from better high speed rail links to eliminate long-distance trips, to micromobility and demand responsive transport for short-distance, to better constructing our cities to begin with to allow for amenities to be walkable. Are we going to eliminate car use in rural areas? Of course not; there’s no point running a bus service for a village of 10 people and a goat. Can we eliminate 99% of car trips for those in built up areas, improving air quality, walkability, and accessibility? That should absolutely be the goal.

      TL;DR: hurr durr fuck cars

  • biddy@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Disagree on noise. Electric cars are quieter when going slowly and the main noise is engine, but louder when going fast and the main noise is tires.

    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      In fact, low speed electric cars are quiet enough that they’ve considered putting speakers in them to alert pedestrians and make the absence of feedback less disconcerting for drivers.

      We’re so used to ICE cars that they’ve contemplated making electric cars pretend that they have an ICE.

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

        They already do this in Europe and other countries where mixed car/pedestrian environments are more common. Electric cars must have some form of audible signature, usually a quiet whirring sound.

  • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The other option to “reduce” cars is replan and rebuild entire cities, districts and even countries around the idea of places being nearby enough to be able to walk or cycle. And cars would still be needed.

    This is why mobile electric cars are an easier option. It turns out that there has to be some level of autonomy and ownership, rather than thinking purging cars out of existence will suddenly move us towards full communism, or whatever the idea is. Allowing personal ownership means people have ways to rebuild places to live or migrate for themselves.

    The bigger problem is not the smaller cars, but the SUVs and mini trucks everyone loves to have, and multiple car ownership. Pareto frontier is the key to everything, cutting down on emissions and too many cars on roads included.

  • Lemonparty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    My favorite part about this sub is how everyone acts like the entire world is able to just stop having a car and be able to carry on normally about their lives as if cars haven’t been forced into nearly all infrastructure plans globally since this inception. Like it’s every citizens personal choice that nobody built a functioning transit system in the many decades before they were born, or that the place they can afford to live is too far from the place that pays the wages they need to live is too far to bike or bus to.

    Like, push for fewer cars and less car centric design, but also stop being a fucking cunty dick about it.

      • Lemonparty@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Oh I’d love to hear your explanation for why it’s irrelevant, and what crucial oversight I’ve made that you’ve managed to in your extensive 16 hours on Lemmy.

        • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Ur comment is irrelevant to this post, as this post is merely talking about the inefficiencies of electric cars. It has not even mentioned the humans driving these cars. Had that been the case, your comment would’ve been relevant.

          This post is an attempt to dispel the myth that electric cars are somehow better than ICE cars. Do you see why your comment is dumb?

          • Lemonparty@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Your reading comprehension and understanding of English vocabulary is about on par with your lemmy account age.

            Til things like “urban sprawl” are inefficiencies inherent to electric cars, and the lengthy list of these inefficiencies are definitely not drawn parallel to ICE in order to suggest that people should instead drive neither as the underlying theme of the post, particularly given the theme of the sub, which I am able to observe because I’ve been here longer than 16 hours.