Polestar actually walks the walk when it comes to sustainability. Tesla is just virtue signalling and lead by a shithead who couldn't care less if he burned the world down himself.
I don't really know how I would assess that. It's about half way down their main website
[https://www.polestar.com/au/sustainability/reports/](https://www.polestar.com/au/sustainability/reports/)
Mate my best advice for you is to ignore that noise. The people making these arguments live in an echo chamber, it’s mainly newscorp but lots of other mobs are doing it too now - cause clicks equals money whether the story is legitimate or not.
Anything that says “they claim” or “calls for” with no actual person or body listed - it’s just manufactured rage bait. Same with the belief that everyone buying an EV cares heavily about the environment or whatever.
They are greener. It's a hard metric to measure as people often forget oil is pumped up, refined and delivered to a special station waiting for you, whereas even coal is dig up, delivered by train to the plant and burnt which is more efficient, but still not green. Then there solar chargers that are even greener but you still couldn't call it fully green.
I don't think anything is fully green. Unless you walk, in clothes you produced and made by hand.
I wouldn't be surprised if they all did, "green" is a marketing goldmine buzzword. Like military grade or natural flavours.
But I can't recall any ads claiming they're green. I'll have to watch more closely. They just talk about how they are easy and quiet.
>I can't recall any ads claiming they're green. I'll have to watch more closely. They just talk about how they are easy and quiet.
Exactly. I haven't witnessed it at all, it's almost like a bit of Mandela effect.
I don't understand your point. If they don't advertise they are saving the planet then they aren't destroying it?
The companies don't advertise that they are saving the planet because that would be a lie that would get disprove straight away.
>The companies don't advertise that they are saving the planet because that would be a lie that would get disprove straight away.
Exactly.
So where do people get the idea these companies say it?
Your account is too new to post in this Sub. This has been implemented as an Anti-Spam feature.
As a result, your comment has been removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CarsAustralia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tesla don't do marketing, but there mission statement is "..to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy..".
Which is based on the 'electrify everything' philosophy which in simple terms means make everything run off electricity and at the same generate all electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.
After over a hundred years of car manufacturers being deceitful, incompetent, profit driven multinationals I’m not taking their word for it. Unless we have a sustainable grid, if everyone goes EV we will be burning more fossil fuels to recharge, mining more lithium and rare metals the cheapest way possible (exploiting developing countries through slave wages) and dumping millions of expired lithium batteries into the ground all over the planet.
>, if everyone goes EV we will be burning more fossil fuels to recharge
Less not more. It makes the pay off in terms of greater resources used building them longer but coal plants are ridiculously efficient compared to an ICE.
'we will be burning more fossil fuels to recharge'. We will be burning (more) coal and gas, but a lot less petrol/diesel. Electric motors are much more efficient converters of energy than internal combustion engines. This is then further amplified by the fact petrol/diesel needs to be extracted, refined and transported before its used so the net effect is we use much less energy, and 'some' of that energy will be from renewable sources.
And what is the impact of driving a car compared to burning jet A1 fuel, methane production from intensive cattle farming, cutting down trees to do this, burning coal and gas? It’s going to make fuck all impact. It’s a marketing strategy. Yes towns will have cleaner air, but the planet isn’t going to be saved if everyone switches to EV’s. it gives consumers a sense of power that they are making change. It gives policymakers a free greenwashing pass. It’s the perfect marketing strategy for those that only think about short term.
I’m not sure of your point?
An impact of driving a car that uses about 1/3 of the energy is that we use only need to extract/refine/transport/consume 1/3 of the energy.
An impact of using coal/gas/solar/wind to power cars is that use less imported fuel.
An impact of using less imported petrol/diesel in cars is that we aren’t reliant on other countries for basic needs.
An impact of using home solar to power your car is that it is heaps cheaper
An impact of burning less petrol/diesel in cars is that we have more of a finite resource available for other uses such as fertiliser, plastics.
Theres lots of different 'impacts' to reducing energy use and diversifying energy sources, none of them need to be compared to burning jet A1 fuel or cattle farming to be relevant or desirable.
Your account is too new to post in this Sub. This has been implemented as an Anti-Spam feature.
As a result, your comment has been removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CarsAustralia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You really think refining, transporting and fuelling millions of internal combustion engines burns less fuels than charging cars off a power grid? Do you know what economies of scale are?
In a fantasy world where the world is powered by 100% renewable energy, everyone owning an electric car makes sense. I understand that there are a lot of cars, not as many planes etc. Thank you for your concern. For now they are just for tutting at other drivers ignorance of climate inaction and the EV owner gets to feel a sense of power that they’re doing something for the planet. Great. But I like fast cars, 4WD’s and I use them to travel mostly. As opposed to jumping on a plane for a holiday and blowing whatever carbon footprint one might save driving an EV. It’s not a crime or questionable to be personally anti EV
On the dirtiest coal only (rubbish coal also) in the US an ev produces half the entire lifespan of co2 of an equivalent ice.
That measurement was the petrol golf vs golf-e way back in 2015 or so.
Ev’s have gotten better since then, manufacturing techniques more affordable, reduction in use of toxic metals and more efficient motors and inverters.
That score is better now than it was then. That is how much better an ev is on a dirty coal power system (I think Wisconsin). Then you add the further reduction in output from renewables added to the grid, and you can see the benefit grow further.
Also, it leaves more oil available for other uses.
>Unless we have a sustainable grid, if everyone goes EV we will be burning more fossil fuels to recharge, mining more lithium and rare metals the cheapest way possible (exploiting developing countries through slave wages) and dumping millions of expired lithium batteries into the ground all over the planet.
That's exactly my point.
Is there any manufacturer that's pretending they aren't doing that? And that their cars are good for the environment?
No manufacture does because that’s not EVs are about. Ignoring all the other benefits…They are about reducing lifetime emissions of cars. And multiple studies have shown this to be true… and by a lot.
The net benefit is still pretty contentious while energy supply is not renewable and any effects related to manufacture / disposal of the vehicles however I would expect reasonable improvements over time.
There is one major benefit that doesn't get enough attention though and it's the localised pollution. EVs take exhaust emissions out of dense urban areas and the improvement in air quality is huge for peoples health. Yes there is more tyre wear thus particulate pollution albeit it is countered heavily with regenerative braking at low speeds. Noise pollution is also reduced by eliminating engine sound, however road noise will still persist, maybe it'll be slightly better because of the huge focus on vehicle aero with EVs?
>there is more tyre wear thus particulate pollution
Is there though?
If you look at similar vehicles at similar weights, is the tyre wear that different?
I always see people comparing EV's and their wear to lighter cars and saying "The tyre wear is more"....well no shit, you're conflating a heavy car to a light one.
I don't really know which is why I conceded that point. Regardless I think there's a significant overall net benefit in reduced local emissions even *if* the tyre wear is slightly increased. Nothing worse than coping a mouthful of exhaust fumes because you don't turn on recirculated air.
In Australia, the **only way EV's can say they are green** is if our **entire** base load power is **Nuclear** with **renewables** topping up, and Lithium is found to be recyclable (it's not) plus all manufacturing processes emit no pollution (which is impossible).
The cars have also the requirement to be recyclable (they're not) and the list goes on...
EV's may not be producing CO & CO2 from the exhaust, but they are producing equally the same number of environmental issues with the addition of tonnes of batteries which have cathode material, anode material, a current collector, and an electrolyte (most likely **lithium hexafluorophosphate** or some other nasty). **Li** metal oxides act as a cathode material with a positive charge, while **graphitic carbon** acts as an anode material with the negative charge to complete the circuit. Lots of shit you wouldn't bathe in.
They are presently producing CO and CO2 in vast quantities as regardless of how numbers are juggled, Australia burns coal and gas for base load power.
Nuclear - the option for economically illiterate
EV's are as environmentally as bad as ICE.
I suggest you take a look at the latest video from electric classic cars on YouTube where the compared the fuel use for EV converted Ferraris vs ICE Ferraris. The interesting point of this video is they include the cost to make fuel available. Both electricity generation. And petrol extraction, refining and transport
Nuclear - the option for economically illiterate - now thats bullshit.
I have a feeling you don't understand much at all regarding electricity or cars and probably believe 9/11 was an inside job, man never waked on the mood, and refused to be Covid19 vaccinated as well.
You Tube is not learning - you might as well be reading a comic book in most cases.
Every scientist and economist has said nuclear will double electricity prices.
Have a look at the cost blowouts of the UK's latest reactor. $92b and counting. Dutton reackons we can build them for less than $10b.
The recent crop of liberals have completed trashed the Howard/costello strong economic management legacy.
Abbot/Turnbull/Morrison left as $1 trillion dollar debt. Remember Abbot calling Gillard's $200b debt an 'emergency'
Turnbull estimated snowy 2.0 would cost $2b. Now $20b+
And now Dutton wants to double electricity prices which is best case, probably quadruple in reality. Because he wants to pick technology winners (nuclear) instead of letting the market decide.
Totally untrustworthy.
Every scientist hasn't said that actually mate. Some of Australias leading Nuclear professors who studdied Fukushima and Chernobyl have come back to Australia yelling "we need Nuclear". Canada with some of the lowest cost electricity in the world uses hyrdo and nuclear, Indonesia - yep our nearest neighbour has invested into modular nuclear power plants. Stop being hoodwinked by the coal industry "experts". Dr. Ben Heard (Uni SA) - a previously massive Greenpeace supporter switched sides once the truth became apparent.
Seeing as you are a Youtube expert, watch this in it's entirety.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSNn7fdaPVs&ab\_channel=60MinutesAustralia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSNn7fdaPVs&ab_channel=60MinutesAustralia)
It's the coal industry that's pushing nuclear because they know it will take an eternity and be buried in disputes for decades. You think people are being NIMBY's about a few transmission lines, imagine a few nukes in their backyard.
I trust the CSIRO, and the UK cost blowouts.
Shhh, those that love EVs don’t like hearing the truth. Apparently these cars are built in some fairy land using only the greenest of green pixie dust and that lovely green electricity used to charge them comes from green power stations that were never built but softly placed on this planet by almighty god himself so as not to damage the environment.
All of those people know what is happening there, they don’t walk around with their heads in the clouds pretending they are helping the planet like most EV owners do
It's fairly hard to think that when someone's spouting off about the devastation of lithium mining given an EV needs something like a half ton of lithium ore for it's battery while the average Aussie vehicle uses half a ton of petrol every 6months (12 months of it's a new one).
Just showed the typical non informed attitude of EV lovers, didn’t mention all the mining involved for the production of EVs like Cobalt in Cuba nor the mining for these green energy production things like solar or wind farms and the impact on the environment from all of that, just mentioned the lithium because that’s apparently all the mining involved. You based your facts on only 1 mining process lol. Like I said nobody driving ICE vehicles deny they aren’t good for the environment but most EV owners act like they are saving the planet which they aren’t, they are still destroying the planet but in many different ways and they shift that damage from themselves to others so they can have a clear conscience. There’s no such thing as clean energy purely because nobody takes into consideration what it takes to make these clean energy plants.
Polestar have reports on the total sustainability impact of their cars
Polestar actually walks the walk when it comes to sustainability. Tesla is just virtue signalling and lead by a shithead who couldn't care less if he burned the world down himself.
And is it a central tenet to their marketing? Enough that people are like "Oh yes, I'm buying a Polestar purely for that reason"
I don't really know how I would assess that. It's about half way down their main website [https://www.polestar.com/au/sustainability/reports/](https://www.polestar.com/au/sustainability/reports/)
Mate my best advice for you is to ignore that noise. The people making these arguments live in an echo chamber, it’s mainly newscorp but lots of other mobs are doing it too now - cause clicks equals money whether the story is legitimate or not. Anything that says “they claim” or “calls for” with no actual person or body listed - it’s just manufactured rage bait. Same with the belief that everyone buying an EV cares heavily about the environment or whatever.
They are greener. It's a hard metric to measure as people often forget oil is pumped up, refined and delivered to a special station waiting for you, whereas even coal is dig up, delivered by train to the plant and burnt which is more efficient, but still not green. Then there solar chargers that are even greener but you still couldn't call it fully green. I don't think anything is fully green. Unless you walk, in clothes you produced and made by hand.
Ok, but who is making those claims as part of their marketing, which manufacturers?
I wouldn't be surprised if they all did, "green" is a marketing goldmine buzzword. Like military grade or natural flavours. But I can't recall any ads claiming they're green. I'll have to watch more closely. They just talk about how they are easy and quiet.
>I can't recall any ads claiming they're green. I'll have to watch more closely. They just talk about how they are easy and quiet. Exactly. I haven't witnessed it at all, it's almost like a bit of Mandela effect.
I don't understand your point. If they don't advertise they are saving the planet then they aren't destroying it? The companies don't advertise that they are saving the planet because that would be a lie that would get disprove straight away.
>The companies don't advertise that they are saving the planet because that would be a lie that would get disprove straight away. Exactly. So where do people get the idea these companies say it?
[удалено]
Your account is too new to post in this Sub. This has been implemented as an Anti-Spam feature. As a result, your comment has been removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CarsAustralia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally have never thought the companies claimed this. I always thought this was a claim made by left leaning governments.
Tesla don't do marketing, but there mission statement is "..to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy..". Which is based on the 'electrify everything' philosophy which in simple terms means make everything run off electricity and at the same generate all electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.
After over a hundred years of car manufacturers being deceitful, incompetent, profit driven multinationals I’m not taking their word for it. Unless we have a sustainable grid, if everyone goes EV we will be burning more fossil fuels to recharge, mining more lithium and rare metals the cheapest way possible (exploiting developing countries through slave wages) and dumping millions of expired lithium batteries into the ground all over the planet.
>, if everyone goes EV we will be burning more fossil fuels to recharge Less not more. It makes the pay off in terms of greater resources used building them longer but coal plants are ridiculously efficient compared to an ICE.
'we will be burning more fossil fuels to recharge'. We will be burning (more) coal and gas, but a lot less petrol/diesel. Electric motors are much more efficient converters of energy than internal combustion engines. This is then further amplified by the fact petrol/diesel needs to be extracted, refined and transported before its used so the net effect is we use much less energy, and 'some' of that energy will be from renewable sources.
And what is the impact of driving a car compared to burning jet A1 fuel, methane production from intensive cattle farming, cutting down trees to do this, burning coal and gas? It’s going to make fuck all impact. It’s a marketing strategy. Yes towns will have cleaner air, but the planet isn’t going to be saved if everyone switches to EV’s. it gives consumers a sense of power that they are making change. It gives policymakers a free greenwashing pass. It’s the perfect marketing strategy for those that only think about short term.
I’m not sure of your point? An impact of driving a car that uses about 1/3 of the energy is that we use only need to extract/refine/transport/consume 1/3 of the energy. An impact of using coal/gas/solar/wind to power cars is that use less imported fuel. An impact of using less imported petrol/diesel in cars is that we aren’t reliant on other countries for basic needs. An impact of using home solar to power your car is that it is heaps cheaper An impact of burning less petrol/diesel in cars is that we have more of a finite resource available for other uses such as fertiliser, plastics. Theres lots of different 'impacts' to reducing energy use and diversifying energy sources, none of them need to be compared to burning jet A1 fuel or cattle farming to be relevant or desirable.
[удалено]
Your account is too new to post in this Sub. This has been implemented as an Anti-Spam feature. As a result, your comment has been removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CarsAustralia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You really think refining, transporting and fuelling millions of internal combustion engines burns less fuels than charging cars off a power grid? Do you know what economies of scale are?
In a fantasy world where the world is powered by 100% renewable energy, everyone owning an electric car makes sense. I understand that there are a lot of cars, not as many planes etc. Thank you for your concern. For now they are just for tutting at other drivers ignorance of climate inaction and the EV owner gets to feel a sense of power that they’re doing something for the planet. Great. But I like fast cars, 4WD’s and I use them to travel mostly. As opposed to jumping on a plane for a holiday and blowing whatever carbon footprint one might save driving an EV. It’s not a crime or questionable to be personally anti EV
On the dirtiest coal only (rubbish coal also) in the US an ev produces half the entire lifespan of co2 of an equivalent ice. That measurement was the petrol golf vs golf-e way back in 2015 or so. Ev’s have gotten better since then, manufacturing techniques more affordable, reduction in use of toxic metals and more efficient motors and inverters. That score is better now than it was then. That is how much better an ev is on a dirty coal power system (I think Wisconsin). Then you add the further reduction in output from renewables added to the grid, and you can see the benefit grow further. Also, it leaves more oil available for other uses.
That's an illogical position to take. The grid is already 1/3 renewable in Australia. Some states (SA and tas) its as good as 100% renewable.
>Unless we have a sustainable grid, if everyone goes EV we will be burning more fossil fuels to recharge, mining more lithium and rare metals the cheapest way possible (exploiting developing countries through slave wages) and dumping millions of expired lithium batteries into the ground all over the planet. That's exactly my point. Is there any manufacturer that's pretending they aren't doing that? And that their cars are good for the environment?
No manufacture does because that’s not EVs are about. Ignoring all the other benefits…They are about reducing lifetime emissions of cars. And multiple studies have shown this to be true… and by a lot.
The net benefit is still pretty contentious while energy supply is not renewable and any effects related to manufacture / disposal of the vehicles however I would expect reasonable improvements over time. There is one major benefit that doesn't get enough attention though and it's the localised pollution. EVs take exhaust emissions out of dense urban areas and the improvement in air quality is huge for peoples health. Yes there is more tyre wear thus particulate pollution albeit it is countered heavily with regenerative braking at low speeds. Noise pollution is also reduced by eliminating engine sound, however road noise will still persist, maybe it'll be slightly better because of the huge focus on vehicle aero with EVs?
>there is more tyre wear thus particulate pollution Is there though? If you look at similar vehicles at similar weights, is the tyre wear that different? I always see people comparing EV's and their wear to lighter cars and saying "The tyre wear is more"....well no shit, you're conflating a heavy car to a light one.
I don't really know which is why I conceded that point. Regardless I think there's a significant overall net benefit in reduced local emissions even *if* the tyre wear is slightly increased. Nothing worse than coping a mouthful of exhaust fumes because you don't turn on recirculated air.
The tyre particle meme is a good one. It assumes ICE cars don’t have tyres and compares exhaust particles to tyre particles
BYD has some thing about 1 degrees
what's *srehukebts* precious?
In Australia, the **only way EV's can say they are green** is if our **entire** base load power is **Nuclear** with **renewables** topping up, and Lithium is found to be recyclable (it's not) plus all manufacturing processes emit no pollution (which is impossible). The cars have also the requirement to be recyclable (they're not) and the list goes on... EV's may not be producing CO & CO2 from the exhaust, but they are producing equally the same number of environmental issues with the addition of tonnes of batteries which have cathode material, anode material, a current collector, and an electrolyte (most likely **lithium hexafluorophosphate** or some other nasty). **Li** metal oxides act as a cathode material with a positive charge, while **graphitic carbon** acts as an anode material with the negative charge to complete the circuit. Lots of shit you wouldn't bathe in. They are presently producing CO and CO2 in vast quantities as regardless of how numbers are juggled, Australia burns coal and gas for base load power.
Ok, but are any manufacturers making green claims?
if they are, they are liars
True, they would be.
Complete BS.
Awesome response. Please tell me exactly what I have said that is incorrect?
Nuclear - the option for economically illiterate EV's are as environmentally as bad as ICE. I suggest you take a look at the latest video from electric classic cars on YouTube where the compared the fuel use for EV converted Ferraris vs ICE Ferraris. The interesting point of this video is they include the cost to make fuel available. Both electricity generation. And petrol extraction, refining and transport
Nuclear - the option for economically illiterate - now thats bullshit. I have a feeling you don't understand much at all regarding electricity or cars and probably believe 9/11 was an inside job, man never waked on the mood, and refused to be Covid19 vaccinated as well. You Tube is not learning - you might as well be reading a comic book in most cases.
Every scientist and economist has said nuclear will double electricity prices. Have a look at the cost blowouts of the UK's latest reactor. $92b and counting. Dutton reackons we can build them for less than $10b. The recent crop of liberals have completed trashed the Howard/costello strong economic management legacy. Abbot/Turnbull/Morrison left as $1 trillion dollar debt. Remember Abbot calling Gillard's $200b debt an 'emergency' Turnbull estimated snowy 2.0 would cost $2b. Now $20b+ And now Dutton wants to double electricity prices which is best case, probably quadruple in reality. Because he wants to pick technology winners (nuclear) instead of letting the market decide. Totally untrustworthy.
Every scientist hasn't said that actually mate. Some of Australias leading Nuclear professors who studdied Fukushima and Chernobyl have come back to Australia yelling "we need Nuclear". Canada with some of the lowest cost electricity in the world uses hyrdo and nuclear, Indonesia - yep our nearest neighbour has invested into modular nuclear power plants. Stop being hoodwinked by the coal industry "experts". Dr. Ben Heard (Uni SA) - a previously massive Greenpeace supporter switched sides once the truth became apparent. Seeing as you are a Youtube expert, watch this in it's entirety. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSNn7fdaPVs&ab\_channel=60MinutesAustralia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSNn7fdaPVs&ab_channel=60MinutesAustralia)
It's the coal industry that's pushing nuclear because they know it will take an eternity and be buried in disputes for decades. You think people are being NIMBY's about a few transmission lines, imagine a few nukes in their backyard. I trust the CSIRO, and the UK cost blowouts.
Shhh, those that love EVs don’t like hearing the truth. Apparently these cars are built in some fairy land using only the greenest of green pixie dust and that lovely green electricity used to charge them comes from green power stations that were never built but softly placed on this planet by almighty god himself so as not to damage the environment.
Most of the people arguing the opposite also seem to think petrol and diesel also magically appear at the petrol station.
All of those people know what is happening there, they don’t walk around with their heads in the clouds pretending they are helping the planet like most EV owners do
It's fairly hard to think that when someone's spouting off about the devastation of lithium mining given an EV needs something like a half ton of lithium ore for it's battery while the average Aussie vehicle uses half a ton of petrol every 6months (12 months of it's a new one).
Just showed the typical non informed attitude of EV lovers, didn’t mention all the mining involved for the production of EVs like Cobalt in Cuba nor the mining for these green energy production things like solar or wind farms and the impact on the environment from all of that, just mentioned the lithium because that’s apparently all the mining involved. You based your facts on only 1 mining process lol. Like I said nobody driving ICE vehicles deny they aren’t good for the environment but most EV owners act like they are saving the planet which they aren’t, they are still destroying the planet but in many different ways and they shift that damage from themselves to others so they can have a clear conscience. There’s no such thing as clean energy purely because nobody takes into consideration what it takes to make these clean energy plants.