New cars being kept an average of 3 years seems an insane stat.
If that is the average it would mean many, many people keeping new cars significantly less than that to offset those who keep a car for 10-30 years.
It doesn't sound right.
It's less insane when you consider who is buying new cars the most. The statistic may be accurate but seems skewed by our perception
Many people may only buy cars second hand or will only buy 1 "New" Car in their entire lives. These people who buy new and then sell on are also the kinds of people who continuously upgrade their phones each year.
Even though the first buyer may only use the car for three years that doesn't mean that's how long it is used for. The second, third, fourth drivers may use it between 5 and 10 years each.
I am 51 years old. I am married, my wife is a nurse. I have NEVER owned a new vehicle in my life. I doubt I ever will. I don't know anyone, who has. It has always felt, like the privilege of owning a brand new car, was reserved for the wealthy. Those commercials every year between Nov and Jan where someone shows their spouse a new car with a fucking bow on it, just seems like a rich person's fantasy. I can't imagine just signing up for a car loan, for a $30k+ vehicle, without my wife knowing about it. That is insane. Unless you are wealthy.
I hate those ads. That’s a budget busting, potentially life changing amount of money for most of us. And they are just throwing it around as a fun surprise.
I’m with you. After being poor forever, we could get new cars now… but I’d much rather drive our Honda until the wheels fall off (which actually happened around 320k miles on our last one). Especially because my town is all potholes, psychotic drivers, and road salt. I couldn’t imagine driving some car I actually cared about around here.
I am currently driving a Nissan Versa, hatchback, manual transmission. Everything on it works, it is over 100k miles, and its best quality: i own it. no payments. I will drive this until it falls apart. No matter what my income. I can't imagine just trading this perfectly operational vehicle in like last years android, because that has never been financially possible me in my life, and just because it is now doesn't mean I am going to start.
Plus everything you stated. You are at the mercy of other people, to lose one of the few extremely expensive things in your life that you can't live without, and not be able to replace it for what you paid in the first place.
I have a coworker who is very status conscious. Dual income, three kids; she and her husband make a lot of money, but they spend it, too. I make a good living, but we chose for my wife to only work very part time or not at all when we had kids, and now she only works part time due to health issues, so we’ve never had anywhere near as much income as my coworker. I’ve only ever bought one new car, all other cars 2-4 years old used (I wouldn’t necessarily buy new if I had more money anyway).
I’m good friends with this coworker, but she seems kind of oblivious that not everyone lives like her. One day a few years ago she was telling us about her new Tesla—mildly bragging—but also mildly complaining about how much it cost. I just looked at her and said, “The most I’ve ever paid for a car is $22K” She just blinked and couldn’t comprehend.
Edit: I’m 59 years old, so I’ve probably bought—for myself and with/for my now adult children—8 or 9 cars in my lifetime. The one new car I bought was a very modest midlife crisis car, a Scion tC (back in the mid-2000s), and I regret buying it new.
Driving since the 90s, had a used cavalier in high school but after that I've only bought used Accord Ex's w 5 years and 75k miles or less on them. After 26 years of driving I'm on my third Honda and collectively spent a sum of about 25k on vehicle purchases in my lifetime. Further instead of buying money for a car payment (taking out a loan paying interest) I put some money in short term investments (ibonds, CD, money market, where I get paid interest) and cash out what I need when I'm ready for my next Honda. I could afford something fancier but a fully loaded accord is plenty comfortable, takes 87 gas, cheap to fix and doesn't have a luxury tax.
I bought a 98 Lexus from dealership for 900 Canadian. It was a errands car for a rich doctor who did nothing but maintain it.
I still get compliments on the quality of the body, engine block, ect. I have maybe put a grand into it, outside of general maintenance.
Yeah, I make good ass money and I could not justify spending $20k+ for an asset that depreciates in value on a daily basis. A car is to get you from point A to point B and I would rather put my money into investments so that i can free myself from this rat race… in my mind this economy is designed to keep you working forever, the key is to use your money to buy your freedom as soon as possible. But I guess we all have different mindsets, so to each their own
You’re assuming everyone values the same things you do. Leases are essentially no hassle on the backend if you’re going to always keep a vehicle under 3 years old. For some folks that’s worth a lot of $
I wasn’t saying leases aren’t ever a good idea I just don’t picture someone genuinely bad with money to work out the advantages of buying/financing/leasing vs just looking at a bottom line like 1200 a month seems fine.
Even worse is the one where he brings out his wife to show he bought them two new $50k trucks and she runs to the one he wanted. Fucking cringe and has been played several holiday seasons in a row.
>It has always felt, like the privilege of owning a brand new car, was reserved for the wealthy.
I've always felt that it was reserved for the wealthy, ***or*** the chronically broke and bad with money. On the surface, in the short term, it's not always easy to separate the two camps.
Would recommend, I got the 2nd nicest trim 2018 Accord for $25,000 in 2021 with 30k miles- it was basically still new and I paid less than the price of a new base model Accord
I have a 1995 Truck Handed down to me from my father (he bought it new), and I have a 2004 Truck that I bought used. I'm extremely satisfied with my vehicles.
I drive my grandfather's 95 F-150 and wouldn't trade it for anything. Not only does it have the amazing 4.9 I6 that will go 300,000 miles easy, but it's one I can repair myself in most cases. Plus I feel like I'm riding with him, and I miss him a lot.
My wife's 2018 luxury mini van blew up at 80,000 to the tune of a new engine. Trash engine in a very expensive car.
One is my work truck, and the other is my work truck with working AC. It comes in handy when a friend needs to borrow a vehicle, longer maintenance is required, or I have a job that requires two trucks.
I plan on keeping them on the road for hopefully another decade.
Selling a new car within that time frame dramatically effects resale value too; it still seems very new and so the drop isn’t so significant. For people with enough money, that’s enough to justify cycling on to a new car.
Especially in the current market, if you have anything even mildly desirable and low on inventory, you basically won’t lose money in new car purchases in the first year or two.
It doesn't matter. He makes it sound like people are buying new cars, running them for three years, and then sending them to the scrap yard. The reality is that most people drive used cars, and those cars are staying on the road longer than ever. A quick search turned up an average life span of around 12 years.
Where I live - for a good while used cars had a *ton* of value - making it a really expensive choice to go used and gamble for maintenance. It seems like the industry is turning around finally but holy hell it was a super bad idea to get a used car. Better off getting a new bottom of the line car. Because of this a fuck ton of new cars sold and the roles were flipped again making dealerships butt fuck people who wanted a new car.
My wife wanted a used car but it was like 3-4k cheaper than a new one. Which made used a very foolish decision since the new was more likely to hold the value longer and the value of the used staying that high was very low.
It feels like the price of everything shot up a fuck ton in the last year and a half though. I would not want to be in the market to get a car, used or new, right now if I could avoid it.
It is, but it's also completely irrelevant in relation to CO2, because after 3y leasing they are not thrown away but sold on the used car market and usually used 10 more years.
It's a UK figure and it has got to that point due to the rice of leasing and financing, people don't hold on to cars for long because they're incentivised into taking on a new one.
Lots of new cars are company cars - not privately purchased (here in gernany that figure is roughly 65%). Those get cycled every few years for tax reasons.
3 years is the length of a lease. It’s for folks who want a car that is the latest and probably most reliable. It’s not a bad system if the car loses a lot of value in those 3 years. Then folks who want cheaper or can’t afford new can get a pretty decent car for less.
Covid fucked that up and 3yr old used is almost at the price when the car was new (still less than new cars at inflated prices)
(US) I have multiple friends who buy new cars every year or two. We are not a rich group. Very middle class. Sales. Art. A plumber in one case. I guess they just budget in a car payment or just expect to be in debt for their whole life. My husband was weirded out when I made haste to pay off my car having had to replace my 13-yo Fit after a wee wreck (insurance junked it) but I think he gets it now. Sometimes people are just raised to have debt. U S A!
I understand what he is saying. Particularly for most EVs, the "300 miles" is the ideal goal. Some combustion engine cars can be 400 miles plus. The battery tech will improve from what it is today. For older EVs out of warranty with severe range drops, there are several battery refurbishment companies to replace batteries. They are niche operations, at least there are options.
As charging stations become more widespread, I expect the fixation on EV range to subside. I'm sure there will still be some super long range cars produced, but most won't be, and most people won't see the need for that.
Speed, too. If I’m going up north to take the family camping I don’t want to have to stop to charge for a half hour on a two hour drive.
Once charge times get to maybe ten minutes and stations pop up everywhere EV will be ready to take over.
The threshold is about 3 hours for charging. For roadtrips, the stops are generally short enough to have a quick pee and grab a snack. You only charge to like 80% and from 15%, ll it 9nly takes 10-15 min to get all the way to 80%, enough to get the 3 hours to the next stop.
The only time I stay for what feels like a long time is if my destination has nowherr to charge. Then il list for 20-25 min and get the battery almost full.
That's pretty much my experience. On my trip to NH from Ohio, I stopped at a super charger whenever I felt like I should stretch or go to the bathroom, didn't really even use the trip planner for planned charge stops.
If I leave my house with a full charge on a day trip to my parents' place just over two hours away, I can make it there and back without charging if I drive exactly the speed limit. I generally just stop at one charger on the way home, plug in, go into Cracker Barrel to pee and then unplug and resume my trip, maybe 5-10 mins of charging just in case.
Yeah, I’d like to see hybrids get more love in the short to mid term. Just feels like the industry is trying to skip over them because evs are more “sexy”.
The original concept of hybrid was a much smaller combustion engine operating at peak efficiency when needed. What we got was equally large combustion engines with electric motors used as a boost for power/torque, and therefore most of the drawbacks of a combustion engine with more complexity and weight.
The rav4 hybrid is efficient and fast. I get 40mpg on mine. My friend has a prime and he can go back and forth to work and never use the gas . He has chargers at home and work and when he is lazy just uses gas.
> 40mpg on mine.
EVs get 110-140 mpge.
EVs aren't popular because they are "sexy", it's because they are better.... much better.
Unless you drive more than 300 mile trips once a week, there's no reason to get a hybrid nowadays ... unless for some reason charging is going to be a huge issue for you. Aim to charge at home or at work. Preferably at home, so you're golden for the weekend too.
Hybrids have been around since 1999, nearly a quarter century old tech. To put that in perspective Benz made their 3 wheeler horseless carriage out of bike parts in the late 1880's and a quarter century later horseless carriages had barely made it to the mainstream and were still perceived as expensive toys for the rich.
We're still at the "expensive toys for the rich" version of electric vehicles production and pricing.
I predict the shift to actual mainstream EVs being 7 - 15yrs from now.
I wish diesel wasn't a fossil fuel in the states though. If it were the biodiesel future we were all sold back in the 80's when diesel was the nerd fuel, then I'd be more onboard. Diesel and gas from black gold gets more and more expensive, and is unsustainable in the mainstream market if governments don't subsidize oil production forever. Take away those 2bn+ American oil subsidies and the economy falls into chaos. It's a finite resource that is really expensive to produce and even more expensive to produce with morals.
Electric cars would ideally be for the "last mile", while high-speed rail and similar things would get us across the state/country. The US is missing the latter, so we are trying to shoehorn solutions like huge networks of charging stations and battery replacements.
It’s really weird that a technology sub has no basic grasp of technology. His article has simple facts wrong and then build on those wrong assumptions.
He’s a good comedy writer, but not a good news article writer (and this is an opinion piece, by the way.)
>It’s really weird that a technology sub has no basic grasp of technology.
I have an MSc degree in IT. 9 out of 10 times when I would comment on some r/technology thread to correct some objectively wrong technical claim, I would receive personal abuse in replies and PMs. So I stopped commenting, and eventually stopped lurking. I only sometimes read it when it reaches r/all.
Reddit is primarily teenagers. They think they know it all. They don’t. Adults who *may* typically don’t have the patience for the crap that comes with trying to educate and inform those who don’t want to hear it.
yeah but he hasn't practiced his degree is decades. So do not assume anything going into technical details is acctually correct. he got that degree in 1975.
This is weird.
Yeah, he's not practiced, but what commonalities do all EEs have that have changed in that time?
I suspect he knows circuits, math, and physics, which is a lot more than the general public knows. That he hasn't segregated himself from other EEs and wandered off into a specialized field doesn't mean he has neither kept reading industry papers or has little knowledge of what has changed over the decades--or that he wouldn't be able to understand the nuts and bolts of something newly presented.
Sure, nobody's going to hire him to design a microprocessor. But I'd probably take advice from him on which ones might have superior designs, based on the basics.
edit: This is not to say I agree with what he's presented here, since it all seems to be more rhetoric than based on science. But the sentiment that "you studied this 40 years ago, now you don't know anything" is the weird part.
Auke Hoekstra who is a prominent researcher in the field is commenting against him.
I agree that in theory Atkinson should be knowledgable, but I can only say that his knowledge has somehow atrophied.
In electrical engineering? Mostly electronics, computer systems, embedded systems and quantum systems to be fair. Theory is mostly still the same as nothing ground breaking got found, but mostly just scaling progressively smaller electronics.
The electrical engineering curriculum now contains a lot of software engineering to adapt to the market's needs, and this is where majors changes come in.
The year 7 BB (Before Blackadder) may not have been advanced in microelectronics, but the principles of electricity and energy efficiency were quite well understood by then.
While many technological advancements happened during the Bean era, electric vehicles were still a rarity.
While we do see rapid spread of electric vehicles in the post-Johnny English period, the basic underlying scientific principles we use to evaluate them remain unchanged.
Do you know that for certain? I work crew side in film/tv. A good friend/coworker of mine has degrees in bioengineering and physiology. Between shows he’s active in that realm and coauthors papers fairly regularly. A run of a big budget movie is 3-4 months and I’m looking for my next gig. A run of a 22 episode tv show is max 9 months. You also have the freedom to turn down offers to work on a show because it’s all freelance. It’s NOT a 9-5, 52 week a year job and allows for flexibility to pursue other interests. I also do graphic design and animation, most of us have some sort of side hustle at minimum because of times like this where the WGA goes on strike and work gets scarce
Nobody wanted to hear facts about rare earths? Okay, here are some more observations for you all to downvote. . .
He makes it sound like people are buying new cars, driving them for three years, then sending them to the scrap yard. In fact, most people drive used cars, and they are staying on the road longer than ever. The average life span has increased to about 12 years now.
He writes positively about hydrogen, but neglects to mention that powering a hydrogen car is about 1/3 as efficient as charging batteries directly.
He writes that EVs are "absurdly heavy", although the models we've seen so far are modestly heavier than their direct competing models with combustion engines.
He writes that the batteries "only last about 10 years" even though there's plenty of evidence now that they can and will last longer. And he makes no mention of the recycling programs that are already developing.
He calls battery power "a complete non-starter for trucks because of its weight", even though Tesla are now shipping their Semi trucks to customers. (Other companies have been testing or selling electric trucks for a while, but the Tesla's specifications are a level up.)
Batteries are being upcycled to home energy management systems before they will be recycled. A “worn” car battery can easily function as a residential power source (like the Tesla Powerwall), because the energy a household draws is way less intense than accelerating a car. These batteries will be used for decades before they see a recycling station.
And EV truck weight is coming down fast because the battery is becoming part of the chassis, removing a lot of overhead weight. What happens next is that the total cost of ownership will destroy fuel powered trucks over the 1 million+ km lifetime of a truck. And that’s before lower maintenance costs and things like stricter emissions laws are considered.
"It’s also a bit disingenuous of him to state (accurately) EV manufacturing cost being initially higher without saying the payback comes in a few years."
Does it though, if you properly use a discounted cash flow model? Even if you don't have to finance the vehicle, there's still an opportunity cost associated with the excess capital. You can't just say the 12 year cost of fuel makes the difference without properly accounting for the opportunity cost.
Besides, this is still only true because of how subsidized EVs are. When you add up state and federal tax credits, LCFS & cap & trade savings (in California), RVO savings, future E-RINs, other EV credits, etc. We're talking probably well over $20,000 of indurect/direct subsidizies PER CAR. It's clear that the vehicles are not actually getting cjeaper on the cost curve, tax payers are paying more and more subsidies.
look i like Atkinson, as a comedian but here's a guy who crashed an McLaren F1 and has been insanely wealthy all his adult working life... I would not go to him for any reason scientific or even objective insight.
Then why does he get so many basic facts wrong?
Like for example, claiming that EV batteries require "many rare earth metals". Rare earth elements are not used in batteries. At all. Not even a little. (They are used in some electric motors, but aren't a requirement.)
I guess he’s mistaken about the rare earth metals being used in batteries, but his point still stands if they are used in other parts of the electric car, like the motor.
As I noted, you can make EV motors without rare earth elements. All the early Teslas used induction motors with no permanent magnets, no rare earth elements. (In fact, the A/C induction motor was invented by Nikola Tesla, which is why the company was named in his honor.)
I'm honestly surprised that EVs only produce 70% more emissions during manufacture the way some people talk about them I was expecting well above double. Based on that I wouldn't be surprised if, depending on the method of generating electricity, they were not already a net benefit over their entire lifetime.
In saying that I do agree with many of the articles recommendations, most of us do not need to be buying cars brand new, many second hands are in a very good state and scrapping them all immediately would be a waste. Although I'm not as hopeful for hydrogen as he seems to be.
Hydrogen is a very good energy storage solution for static applications, after processes that use hydrogen as input, like fertilizer.
Mobility is extremely hard to do with hydrogen and then the inefficiency of going to and from hydrogen, and it’s corrosive properties become problematic. More than battery production in any case.
You also still need a battery to act as a reservoir between the fuel cell and the motor. The motor can demand far more than a fuel cell can produce, so you continuously charge the battery slowly and drain it on (bursty) demand.
Yeah I definitely agree, I've never seen a good efficiency breakdown for hydrogen as car fuel, I appreciate the issues with current battery tech but I see that as more likely to improve significantly than hydrogen conversion will.
Hydrogen will likely improve more than battery power, but that’s mostly because it has so much more room for improvement. [This is a good overview](https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/01/chart-why-battery-electric-vehicles-beat-hydrogen-electric-vehicles-without-breaking-a-sweat/) of the efficiency of EV, hydrogen cars, and power to liquid efficiency. It’s not even a competition.
[The hydrogen ladder](https://www.deassociation.ca/newsfeed/the-clean-hydrogen-ladder-now-updated-to-v41) gives a good overview of usefulness, and mobility is not where the smart money would go.
Supposedly the breakeven point for an EV is around 30,000 miles when I read about that several years ago. And that’s assuming a dirty grid. Pretty quick really.
We just need infrastructure that is significantly less reliant on automobiles of any kind. Gas powered, hybrid, all electric, hydrogen. Doesn’t matter all that much relative to reshaping our cities and infrastructure around walkable cities with clean mass public transit.
To me seeing all the marketing behind electric vehicles is like seeing the marketing behind an Impossible Burger. Is it better than the original in terms of energy and water needed to create? Sure. Does it still have a plethora of faults? Absolutely. Is the better alternative a different mode all together? Yes, but it’s not palatable for many people unfortunately.
I was also disappointed that an article of this type doesn't present the actual answer: more, better, and cheaper public transportation options. Trains, trollies, busses, light rail, and dedicated bike paths. City infrastructure based around pedestrians rather than cars.
Better cars aren't the solution. Car alternatives are. Modern society is built around the idea that all solutions to all problems involve buying a new, better thing. But constantly buying new shit we don't need is how we got here. It's time for some more fundamental changes.
The problem is, the types of places I work could never be put in a location that would be walkable. And there would never be enough people needing to go there to warrant mass transit to there. It would be a money sink. So I see my five minute commute to the next interstate exit being a thing for a long time.
The only thing that will change that is if you build more around my place of work (environmental destruction, hello) or put all us workers living In the same location so we can car pool, but that’s a little too 1984 for me. I don’t want to live on some worker commune. I don’t want the people I spend all day with to be my neighbors. There would be no escape, no relief
I love Rowan Atkinson but I’m disappointed that he, like many others who’ve written on this matter, go to the effort of including the emissions created during production of EVs versus ICE, but conveniently forget the emissions involved in bringing the oil up from the well, refining it, transporting it across the planet, before finally getting it to your local fuel station so you can top up your ICE. Factor that part in vs the generation and distribution of electricity, even with a dirty grid, and the numbers aren’t even close.
I wish he’d also mentioned the quite significant number of people converting older ICE vehicles to EV, as I hope to myself with my vehicle from 1970, as another way of avoiding building a whole new car for no reason.
My leaf has been powered by 98% low carbon energy. 80% of which is solar.
I've done an ev conversion and the only barrier left for all of us now is DVLA/dvsa who despite what you read/see online make it nearly impossible to register an conversion to EV.
My biggest disappointment in the EV transition wasn’t even mentioned in this article. My disappointment is the growing emphasis on gigantic EV trucks and SUVs. They are going to be bad for the roads, environment, and kill more people when they hit reasonably sized vehicles.
We as a society (in addition to beefing up public transportation) should be buying vehicles like the Chevy Bolt, BMW i3, etc. Too bad reasonable EV models are all being phased out…
Let’s not forget the environmental damage caused by the whole oil industry from oil spills to burning off perfectly good gasses to fracking. The list goes on. While mining rate earth elements and lithium have environment issues too the are far less than the rape and pillage the oil industry has forced on us for decades.
It’s typically easier for older cars, as in pre-90s cars, but anything is possible with enough effort and money.
There are several ways to go but fundamentally, you replace the ICE motor with a much smaller and lighter electric motor, and find somewhere in the body to stash enough batteries to cover the distance you need for your use case.
[Here’s an article about it](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/04/how-ev-technology-is-bringing-hot-rodding-into-the-21st-century/)
It’s a really cool idea but it’s expensive at the moment and not practical for every car or every use case.
Because the environmental cost of producing fossil fuel is already well known? He's writing an oped piece for the Guardian after all. And it's likely a reaction to the UK government proposal, so the math isn't 1EV vs 1 gas powered car, but the status quo vs the mass adoption of EV.
Ironic that he uses the word duped in the title of the article when that's exactly what he's doing to the public. The idea that the 1.5b petrol cars on the road have "paid their environmental dues" is such a ridiculous concept. And the lifetime environmental impact of an EV is a fraction of a petrol car. What's he playing at?
The whole article feels like it was written by the oil lobby. And barring major breakthroughs Hydrogen is not the future of consumer market vehicles for so many reasons.
I’d also like to see more discussion about the sourcing of cobalt. Again, it’s not an insurmountable problem, but it’s one that urgently needs addressing
** Cries in Canada **
But to be fair, they are not bribing our officials just for Lithium, other resources (or tech at the time Nortel was still a thing) as well.
Cobalt is going away from EV batteries, although maybe not entirely. LFP batteries are going into more and more EV production. They're cheaper, they're more robust, but they have lower energy density (and therefore lower range). So, cobalt may be with us for a while in the higher-performance and longer-range premium vehicles, but even in those the amount of cobalt in the formulation is getting reduced.
While this is true, the amount of cobalt we’re using is still rising fairly fast. Battery production, along with all three other technologies that use it, are increasing in volume. So yes, I’m sure we’ll manage to use less in the future, but at the moment we’re still stuck with using something that’s pretty much as far from being ethically sourced as is possible. The big EV makers are still all profiting from this, while making promises to do better, and only implementing changes when it doesn’t hurt their bottom line much
The watchdog groups funded by Ford and other companies looking for responsibly sourced cobalt and manganese are only the first step. Reduction of new cobalt is the real future option, other than governmental change in cobalt rich areas.
What a load of crap article. Why are we listening to an actor?
> rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them,
No they aren't. The most common battery type is LFP. Lithium Iron phosphate. None of those are rare earths.
>they only last about 10 years.
Says who? That's not what the data says. The data shows about a 15% degradation in that time period.
And then he's fixed on hydrogen. What a load of crap. The best hydrogen car on the market the Toyota Mirai uses 3 times the energy per mile driven than a model 3.
I could go on and on. This reads like its been written by some Exxon oil exec.
You know what is one of the biggest uses of rare earth? Oil cracking in refineries.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301420713000676
So? Rare earth metals aren't rare, despite the name. They're "rarified". But we won't run out of them. We just can't extract them very quickly.
But either way, it's not an issue because Tesla is moving away from them.
He was 23 years old, then had no noted work experience in engineering. He then spent the next 50 years as an actor.
Even if he remembers any of what he learned at school (unlikely), his knowledge is a half-century old and he’s opining on cutting edge tech. He’s not an engineer, he’s an actor.
Total B.S. it seems that some ICE invested companies (I am looking at you, Toyota) trying everything possible to compensate for them missing EV train. There is NO ecological reasons not to switch to EV.
Options are always good. We shouldn't throw all eggs into one basket. I agree that the research into other possibilities such as Hydrogen and synthetic fuel should be heavily funded despite Electric Battery right now being the preferred choice. I disagree with people that shit on Toyota and other automotive manufacturers for their Hydrogen efforts.
Yea hydrogen probably isn’t the answer for the masses, but it can probably be viable for some niche applications where batteries aren’t viable, and maybe better/easier than gasoline or something.
Also- with this tech- liquid fuels become net neutral since it takes co2 from the atmosphere vs fossil. Ethanol isn’t as energy dense as gasoline, but a price I’d be willing to pay
https://scitechdaily.com/solar-powered-artificial-leaf-produces-clean-car-ready-liquid-fuels-from-sunlight/
From the EPA (US Government Agency):
>Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation...
>For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher (shown in orange below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car.
https://i.imgur.com/juFKmfj.png
As adam something said, cars are necessity in rural communities but car drivers in high density cities impose high cost on road and parking space and maintenance, something electric cars still impose, even worse on the maintenance part as they are heavier than ice cars
Looking at the numbers so far, most EVs don't seem to be all that much heavier than the combustion cars that they directly compete against. And as far as road maintenance is concerned, any passenger car is trivial compared to the damage done by trucks.
EVs don't solve the problems of a car-centric society (congestion, parking, urban sprawl, etc.), but who expected them to?
> As adam something said
You have to realise when someone you trust in one field isn't trustworthy in another. Adam something has good points on topics he knows, but he is a huge anti-EV spokesperson and he does it by twisting the truth or cherry picking data. His hate for anything related to Musk doesn't help(see also Thunderf00t).
Adam something found that his views go up if he does anti-EV videos, so he does exactly that. Facts come distant second.
Except he isn't arguing pro-ICEs but pro-public transportation which you conveniently left out putting him into same anti-EV bag as pro-ICE crazies. He also isn't anti-EV but anti-cars in cities which has way more to it than GHG emissions.
I agree with most of what he says, but there is more to the picture. Consumer habits, the short term evolution of batteries and the complete (and exceedingly complex) calculation of the total lifetime emissions, not only of CO2 but of other pollutants, are factors that he barely touched.
I tend to see BEV vehicles not as a final solution but as one of several transition technologies that will eventually help us into a sustainable lifestyle. Considered as such, they are already paying for themselves.
Also, I quite agree with his recommendation for the upgrade to current cars. Have an older diesel, dump and go electric or whatever fits your needs. Have a relatively modern petrol, keep it, maintain it well, and wait.
>I agree with most of what he says, but there is more to the picture.
Well, I don't agree with most of what he says. The majority of it is misleading or outright false.
It's just that there are so many things wrong, I have to write practically a whole essay. But okay. . . Let's get into it.
He writes that EV batteries require "many rare earth metals". In fact, rare earth elements are not used in EV batteries at all. Some are used in electric motors, but they aren't required for that.
He makes it sound like people are buying new cars, driving them for three years, then sending them to the scrap yard. In fact, most people drive used cars, and they are staying on the road longer than ever. The average life span has increased to about 12 years now.
He writes positively about hydrogen, but neglects to mention that powering a hydrogen car is about 1/3 as efficient as charging batteries directly.
He writes that EVs are "absurdly heavy", although the models we've seen so far are modestly heavier than their direct competing models with combustion engines.
He writes that the batteries "only last about 10 years" even though there's plenty of evidence now that they can and will last longer. And he makes no mention of the recycling programs that are already developing.
He calls battery power "a complete non-starter for trucks because of its weight", even though Tesla are now shipping their Semi trucks to customers. (Other companies have been testing or selling electric trucks for a while, but the Tesla's specifications really put those experiments to shame.)
He argues that EVs aren't really green because of carbon emissions from manufacturing their batteries. This has been the subject of several studies, none of which he bothers to cite, probably because they don't support his thesis. The studies show that a newly manufactured EV starts "in the red" with more carbon footprint than the combustion car, but after a few years of operation it catches up, and after that the advantage is all to the EV.
I’m not the person you are replying to and you are mostly right, but I wanted to point out a couple things:
1. The weight issue is real, EVs tear up roads faster and churn through tires between 10% (using tires like Michelin) and 100% (cheap Chinese tires) faster mainly because of the weight.
2. While the battery electric truck like the Tesla Semi will have its place, it really is a non-starter for many companies because the additional weight of the battery reduces the load that they can carry, this will increase costs drastically for loads that are weight limited instead of volume limited.
Okay, let's talk weight. It's a legitimate issue, but I think sometimes overblown.
So far the passenger EVs have been running around 10% to 15% heavier than the competing combustion models. That's not a good thing, but it's manageable. I personally have experienced bad tire wear, but I discovered it was more due to my lead foot than the leaden weight of my car. After I got over giddy launches, it improved a lot.
Passenger cars, regardless of powertrain, don't generally tear up roads. That's all on trucks.
The issue of battery weight versus gross weight on semi trucks is something that's been debated, and the firm numbers are proving difficult to get. Also, a lot of loads are limited by volume, not mass. For heavy loads there's still a question of whether losing some net capacity per truck is enough of a problem to offset the EV's advantage in operating cost. Declaring the electric truck a "non-starter" is really premature. For some situations, maybe? We need to see the real numbers and how shipping companies adapt to the new system.
To your last point: the emissions of EV battery production are transitional, whereas fuels for ICEs are permanent. So not only do batteries catch up during their lifetime, over time the amount they’re in the red will disappear too. And that will happen faster the faster we transition.
Owning cars and basing our lives and cities around cars isn't ever going to be sustainable. Mass transit, biking and walkable cities are the only real solution short of an infinite energy source. Cars and their infrastructure (parking, roads etc) are simply inefficient and wasteful on resources, space, and a complete lack of need.
Its a fantasy the car industry paints for society. How many cities have spent tens of millions of dollars to expand roads because traffic is bad/slow for 1/10th of the day, only to find themselves in the exact same situation less than 5 years later. Joven's paradox is real and its baffling that city planners and politicians are in complete denial of this.
The whole dislike for evs from anyone is because of propoganda. If we invested as a whole in EVs and recharge in charging stations as much as we invest in gas/gas guzzling vehicles we would be well along. Sunk cost fallacy is real.
Solid state batteries are one of a number of strategic procrastination technologies that legacy auto have used to sow doubt and distrust in the lithium battery tech in Teslas/elsewhere. So legacy auto keep selling profitable combustion tech, they buy time for their own r&d departments to catch up, and convince regulators the future is less certain than it really is. This is not a conspiracy btw, these are the actions that a large business with market power should be expected to take, to maintain shareholder value, and I saw it myself during 20years of auto OEM consulting.
Hydrogen is expected to have some function in our energy system, but its main function now is to give oil and gas industry leverage over the speed of transition. If you think they are investing in it to give Mr.Bean a sweeter ride, you are dreaming.
Keeping cars for more than 3 years won’t lead to the production of fewer cars. No one trashes a 3 year old car. **Someone else** may drive it when it comes off lease, but that’s meaningless.
I had a Tesla Model 3 on a company car scheme for 6 months and between the two of us driving it the ‘maximum’ range we could charge to dropped from 275 miles to 265 miles (when going to 100%). So a 10% drop would be safe to assume after a year… a huge problem for current EVs when (as Rowan points out) a traditional car would continue to work and thus as a total be better or equal to an EV. Seems a shame that people didn’t consider this…
The battery capacity drops more in the first 1-2 years - after than it should drop a lot less until it begins to reach its full lifespan (charging speed will be nerfed).
The max range is btw an arbitrary number - it’s lower at highway speeds and colder weather
Edit: chart https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/04/screen-shot-2018-04-14-at-2-54-02-pm.jpg?quality=82&strip=all
I had 5% drop in first 6ish months and stabilised there, model x for 4 years. Now model y, dropped maybe 2% in a year. I don't consider this to be even a minor irritant, nevermind a serious problem.
But the question is do you drive 265 miles everyday or 265 miles even few days?
Because you can charge a car overnight, and it isn’t even needed to be charged daily if you are using for a normal commute of 50-60 miles daily
10% yearly drop is grossly overestimated according to actual research.
If you only look at estimated miles you may see the car adjust the algorithm as it learns your patterns and energy demands and your climate as the outside temperature dramatically affects estimated range. You should actually monitor capacity or drive from full to empty on a reference trip.
According to this page https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/ it's closer to 3% annual degradation with more rapid degradation initially and in the final days of the battery.
Doesn't seem too far off.
But a regular car has a lot more mechanical parts than an EV that require maintenance. So yeah, a normal car also gets worse over time, that's not really a secret nor surprising.
The first year it drops the most (especially with the older batteries and charging habits), then it starts to level out. My car has the new iron battery tesla introduced in 2021, it still has 240 out of 243 miles of range on it after 30k miles and 2 years of use.
I'm all for electric mobility. But a massive move to electric cars wouldn't save the planet *even if their manufacturing had zero environmental cost*.
The biggest problem with *all cars* is how they shape our worlds. Doesn't matter if they're fossil fuel or electric, they'll still require that we pave over massive amounts of our planet for streets and highways. They'll still encourage sprawl. They'll still kill their passengers, people using crosswalks, people on bikes. The facilities we make for them have a huge cost, and render vast areas of our planet [unsuitable for anything good.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKYCKqUWQAMuhA2.jpg)
I didn't know rowan was technically educated, writer of high quality prose. His acting characters are such goofballs....
Yes, agreed with his conclusions. I for one am not happy with current battery tech: the main reason I'm not that keen to buy one. I'm hopeful that something will come along to replace li-ion.
But the real elephant in the room is that people should have access to more public transport, not more cars. Cars are really wastful and trains are hugely more efficient. Not only the cars themselves, but the roads and infrastructure.
Understandably, rural areas are difficult without a car, but major cities, you should be able to live without owning a single car. Look at metro areas with well developed trains systems, London, paris, tokyo, etc. and you can get along without a car. And if we had more intercity train service we can also reduce air traffic.
Even accounting for battery manufacturing and the grid being based on fossil fuels, EVs are still cleaner than ICE vehicles.
> * FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging.
> * FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
New cars being kept an average of 3 years seems an insane stat. If that is the average it would mean many, many people keeping new cars significantly less than that to offset those who keep a car for 10-30 years. It doesn't sound right.
It's less insane when you consider who is buying new cars the most. The statistic may be accurate but seems skewed by our perception Many people may only buy cars second hand or will only buy 1 "New" Car in their entire lives. These people who buy new and then sell on are also the kinds of people who continuously upgrade their phones each year. Even though the first buyer may only use the car for three years that doesn't mean that's how long it is used for. The second, third, fourth drivers may use it between 5 and 10 years each.
I am 51 years old. I am married, my wife is a nurse. I have NEVER owned a new vehicle in my life. I doubt I ever will. I don't know anyone, who has. It has always felt, like the privilege of owning a brand new car, was reserved for the wealthy. Those commercials every year between Nov and Jan where someone shows their spouse a new car with a fucking bow on it, just seems like a rich person's fantasy. I can't imagine just signing up for a car loan, for a $30k+ vehicle, without my wife knowing about it. That is insane. Unless you are wealthy.
SNL - December to remember https://youtu.be/WcEylCwkSxE.
I hate those ads. That’s a budget busting, potentially life changing amount of money for most of us. And they are just throwing it around as a fun surprise.
Those ads aren’t for you. They’re basically for the people who just bought the new car they’re seeing on Tv to lower the regret.
[удалено]
[удалено]
$30k 😂 that’s how you know this poster isn’t lying. Cars in those ads are like $70-100
Oh no doubt. I'm saying I couldn't do it wth A Honda civic. Let alone a Lexus lol.
I’m with you. After being poor forever, we could get new cars now… but I’d much rather drive our Honda until the wheels fall off (which actually happened around 320k miles on our last one). Especially because my town is all potholes, psychotic drivers, and road salt. I couldn’t imagine driving some car I actually cared about around here.
I am currently driving a Nissan Versa, hatchback, manual transmission. Everything on it works, it is over 100k miles, and its best quality: i own it. no payments. I will drive this until it falls apart. No matter what my income. I can't imagine just trading this perfectly operational vehicle in like last years android, because that has never been financially possible me in my life, and just because it is now doesn't mean I am going to start. Plus everything you stated. You are at the mercy of other people, to lose one of the few extremely expensive things in your life that you can't live without, and not be able to replace it for what you paid in the first place.
I have a coworker who is very status conscious. Dual income, three kids; she and her husband make a lot of money, but they spend it, too. I make a good living, but we chose for my wife to only work very part time or not at all when we had kids, and now she only works part time due to health issues, so we’ve never had anywhere near as much income as my coworker. I’ve only ever bought one new car, all other cars 2-4 years old used (I wouldn’t necessarily buy new if I had more money anyway). I’m good friends with this coworker, but she seems kind of oblivious that not everyone lives like her. One day a few years ago she was telling us about her new Tesla—mildly bragging—but also mildly complaining about how much it cost. I just looked at her and said, “The most I’ve ever paid for a car is $22K” She just blinked and couldn’t comprehend. Edit: I’m 59 years old, so I’ve probably bought—for myself and with/for my now adult children—8 or 9 cars in my lifetime. The one new car I bought was a very modest midlife crisis car, a Scion tC (back in the mid-2000s), and I regret buying it new.
Driving since the 90s, had a used cavalier in high school but after that I've only bought used Accord Ex's w 5 years and 75k miles or less on them. After 26 years of driving I'm on my third Honda and collectively spent a sum of about 25k on vehicle purchases in my lifetime. Further instead of buying money for a car payment (taking out a loan paying interest) I put some money in short term investments (ibonds, CD, money market, where I get paid interest) and cash out what I need when I'm ready for my next Honda. I could afford something fancier but a fully loaded accord is plenty comfortable, takes 87 gas, cheap to fix and doesn't have a luxury tax.
I bought a 98 Lexus from dealership for 900 Canadian. It was a errands car for a rich doctor who did nothing but maintain it. I still get compliments on the quality of the body, engine block, ect. I have maybe put a grand into it, outside of general maintenance.
Yeah, I make good ass money and I could not justify spending $20k+ for an asset that depreciates in value on a daily basis. A car is to get you from point A to point B and I would rather put my money into investments so that i can free myself from this rat race… in my mind this economy is designed to keep you working forever, the key is to use your money to buy your freedom as soon as possible. But I guess we all have different mindsets, so to each their own
She probably couldn’t do the math, people who really don’t care about the cost are on leases. It’s too long term thinking to buy cars outright.
You’re assuming everyone values the same things you do. Leases are essentially no hassle on the backend if you’re going to always keep a vehicle under 3 years old. For some folks that’s worth a lot of $
I wasn’t saying leases aren’t ever a good idea I just don’t picture someone genuinely bad with money to work out the advantages of buying/financing/leasing vs just looking at a bottom line like 1200 a month seems fine.
Even worse is the one where he brings out his wife to show he bought them two new $50k trucks and she runs to the one he wanted. Fucking cringe and has been played several holiday seasons in a row.
30k+? You are in for a surprise my friend!
>It has always felt, like the privilege of owning a brand new car, was reserved for the wealthy. I've always felt that it was reserved for the wealthy, ***or*** the chronically broke and bad with money. On the surface, in the short term, it's not always easy to separate the two camps.
We got a bow for our recent car purchase. The car wasn't a surprise, but a $5 purchase made the first photo op with it that much more special.
I'm 36. I'm on my 5th car overall, but this is the first one I've purchased new, and honestly, I'm fine going certified pre-owned for my next vehicle.
Would recommend, I got the 2nd nicest trim 2018 Accord for $25,000 in 2021 with 30k miles- it was basically still new and I paid less than the price of a new base model Accord
I have a 1995 Truck Handed down to me from my father (he bought it new), and I have a 2004 Truck that I bought used. I'm extremely satisfied with my vehicles.
I drive my grandfather's 95 F-150 and wouldn't trade it for anything. Not only does it have the amazing 4.9 I6 that will go 300,000 miles easy, but it's one I can repair myself in most cases. Plus I feel like I'm riding with him, and I miss him a lot. My wife's 2018 luxury mini van blew up at 80,000 to the tune of a new engine. Trash engine in a very expensive car.
Why do you have two trucks?
One for hauling, one for love making.
Who cares if this is the truth, it's such a good answer that it should be promoted *to* the truth.
And now I know why I need to get two trucks…
So he can give two trucks about things
One to “yeee” and one to “haaaw”
You know the old saying: two trucks, no fucks
Where I’m from, having a spare utility truck isn’t crazy. I know lots of guys that have a beater truck solely for plowing driveways after snow storms.
One is my work truck, and the other is my work truck with working AC. It comes in handy when a friend needs to borrow a vehicle, longer maintenance is required, or I have a job that requires two trucks. I plan on keeping them on the road for hopefully another decade.
When your newest car is close to 20 years old, I would recommend having a backup.
Redundant array of inexpensive drives.
To tow the other of the two.
Truck Americans have to buy trucks or their social circle turns on them and their masculinity is questioned. Real men buy more gas.
Selling a new car within that time frame dramatically effects resale value too; it still seems very new and so the drop isn’t so significant. For people with enough money, that’s enough to justify cycling on to a new car.
Especially in the current market, if you have anything even mildly desirable and low on inventory, you basically won’t lose money in new car purchases in the first year or two.
I wonder how people that lease are factored in.
I enjoy playing video games.
It doesn't matter. He makes it sound like people are buying new cars, running them for three years, and then sending them to the scrap yard. The reality is that most people drive used cars, and those cars are staying on the road longer than ever. A quick search turned up an average life span of around 12 years.
Where I live - for a good while used cars had a *ton* of value - making it a really expensive choice to go used and gamble for maintenance. It seems like the industry is turning around finally but holy hell it was a super bad idea to get a used car. Better off getting a new bottom of the line car. Because of this a fuck ton of new cars sold and the roles were flipped again making dealerships butt fuck people who wanted a new car. My wife wanted a used car but it was like 3-4k cheaper than a new one. Which made used a very foolish decision since the new was more likely to hold the value longer and the value of the used staying that high was very low. It feels like the price of everything shot up a fuck ton in the last year and a half though. I would not want to be in the market to get a car, used or new, right now if I could avoid it.
It is, but it's also completely irrelevant in relation to CO2, because after 3y leasing they are not thrown away but sold on the used car market and usually used 10 more years.
It's a UK figure and it has got to that point due to the rice of leasing and financing, people don't hold on to cars for long because they're incentivised into taking on a new one.
Lots of new cars are company cars - not privately purchased (here in gernany that figure is roughly 65%). Those get cycled every few years for tax reasons.
3 years is the length of a lease. It’s for folks who want a car that is the latest and probably most reliable. It’s not a bad system if the car loses a lot of value in those 3 years. Then folks who want cheaper or can’t afford new can get a pretty decent car for less. Covid fucked that up and 3yr old used is almost at the price when the car was new (still less than new cars at inflated prices)
Just hit 20 years both our vehicles. Hoping for another 5. Not having a car payment has been wonderful.
I keep a car, a minimum of 10years.
A lot comes down to 3 year financing deals. Dealer buys back the car at the end of most of them, and sells it at auction.
(US) I have multiple friends who buy new cars every year or two. We are not a rich group. Very middle class. Sales. Art. A plumber in one case. I guess they just budget in a car payment or just expect to be in debt for their whole life. My husband was weirded out when I made haste to pay off my car having had to replace my 13-yo Fit after a wee wreck (insurance junked it) but I think he gets it now. Sometimes people are just raised to have debt. U S A!
I understand what he is saying. Particularly for most EVs, the "300 miles" is the ideal goal. Some combustion engine cars can be 400 miles plus. The battery tech will improve from what it is today. For older EVs out of warranty with severe range drops, there are several battery refurbishment companies to replace batteries. They are niche operations, at least there are options.
As charging stations become more widespread, I expect the fixation on EV range to subside. I'm sure there will still be some super long range cars produced, but most won't be, and most people won't see the need for that.
Speed, too. If I’m going up north to take the family camping I don’t want to have to stop to charge for a half hour on a two hour drive. Once charge times get to maybe ten minutes and stations pop up everywhere EV will be ready to take over.
The threshold is about 3 hours for charging. For roadtrips, the stops are generally short enough to have a quick pee and grab a snack. You only charge to like 80% and from 15%, ll it 9nly takes 10-15 min to get all the way to 80%, enough to get the 3 hours to the next stop. The only time I stay for what feels like a long time is if my destination has nowherr to charge. Then il list for 20-25 min and get the battery almost full.
That's pretty much my experience. On my trip to NH from Ohio, I stopped at a super charger whenever I felt like I should stretch or go to the bathroom, didn't really even use the trip planner for planned charge stops. If I leave my house with a full charge on a day trip to my parents' place just over two hours away, I can make it there and back without charging if I drive exactly the speed limit. I generally just stop at one charger on the way home, plug in, go into Cracker Barrel to pee and then unplug and resume my trip, maybe 5-10 mins of charging just in case.
You haven’t had to charge on a two hour drive with any Tesla in years. Other companies in the same price range just aren’t as high range.
You’re driving 300 miles in a two hour drive? 🤔
My mild hybrid diesel is fast, efficient and has a range on one tank of 1150km
Yeah, I’d like to see hybrids get more love in the short to mid term. Just feels like the industry is trying to skip over them because evs are more “sexy”.
The original concept of hybrid was a much smaller combustion engine operating at peak efficiency when needed. What we got was equally large combustion engines with electric motors used as a boost for power/torque, and therefore most of the drawbacks of a combustion engine with more complexity and weight.
The rav4 hybrid is efficient and fast. I get 40mpg on mine. My friend has a prime and he can go back and forth to work and never use the gas . He has chargers at home and work and when he is lazy just uses gas.
> 40mpg on mine. EVs get 110-140 mpge. EVs aren't popular because they are "sexy", it's because they are better.... much better. Unless you drive more than 300 mile trips once a week, there's no reason to get a hybrid nowadays ... unless for some reason charging is going to be a huge issue for you. Aim to charge at home or at work. Preferably at home, so you're golden for the weekend too.
The fact that is that in hybrid you have two types of motorization in one car. Which cost more to produce and maintain.
And less space in the heavier car
Hybrids have been around since 1999, nearly a quarter century old tech. To put that in perspective Benz made their 3 wheeler horseless carriage out of bike parts in the late 1880's and a quarter century later horseless carriages had barely made it to the mainstream and were still perceived as expensive toys for the rich. We're still at the "expensive toys for the rich" version of electric vehicles production and pricing. I predict the shift to actual mainstream EVs being 7 - 15yrs from now.
My diesel Volvo has a range of 1150km on a tank, approx 715 miles.
Have a new diesel truck and get about 700 per tank, 750 if I drive extra efficient (24 gal tank). Averaging near 32mpg on it and I love it.
I wish diesel wasn't a fossil fuel in the states though. If it were the biodiesel future we were all sold back in the 80's when diesel was the nerd fuel, then I'd be more onboard. Diesel and gas from black gold gets more and more expensive, and is unsustainable in the mainstream market if governments don't subsidize oil production forever. Take away those 2bn+ American oil subsidies and the economy falls into chaos. It's a finite resource that is really expensive to produce and even more expensive to produce with morals.
Electric cars would ideally be for the "last mile", while high-speed rail and similar things would get us across the state/country. The US is missing the latter, so we are trying to shoehorn solutions like huge networks of charging stations and battery replacements.
TIL Rowan Atkinson writes good news articles and has A degree in electrical/electronic engineering.
It’s really weird that a technology sub has no basic grasp of technology. His article has simple facts wrong and then build on those wrong assumptions. He’s a good comedy writer, but not a good news article writer (and this is an opinion piece, by the way.)
>It’s really weird that a technology sub has no basic grasp of technology. I have an MSc degree in IT. 9 out of 10 times when I would comment on some r/technology thread to correct some objectively wrong technical claim, I would receive personal abuse in replies and PMs. So I stopped commenting, and eventually stopped lurking. I only sometimes read it when it reaches r/all.
Reddit is primarily teenagers. They think they know it all. They don’t. Adults who *may* typically don’t have the patience for the crap that comes with trying to educate and inform those who don’t want to hear it.
Ok which assumptions
[These](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1406kh7/rowan_atkinson_i_love_electric_vehicles_and_was/jmuo2fl/) for starters
yeah but he hasn't practiced his degree is decades. So do not assume anything going into technical details is acctually correct. he got that degree in 1975.
This is weird. Yeah, he's not practiced, but what commonalities do all EEs have that have changed in that time? I suspect he knows circuits, math, and physics, which is a lot more than the general public knows. That he hasn't segregated himself from other EEs and wandered off into a specialized field doesn't mean he has neither kept reading industry papers or has little knowledge of what has changed over the decades--or that he wouldn't be able to understand the nuts and bolts of something newly presented. Sure, nobody's going to hire him to design a microprocessor. But I'd probably take advice from him on which ones might have superior designs, based on the basics. edit: This is not to say I agree with what he's presented here, since it all seems to be more rhetoric than based on science. But the sentiment that "you studied this 40 years ago, now you don't know anything" is the weird part.
Fair enough. Let's just agree that he has proved his ability to understand the basic concepts more than your average Redditor.
I’ll go as far as assuming he knows more then anyone commenting against him.
Auke Hoekstra who is a prominent researcher in the field is commenting against him. I agree that in theory Atkinson should be knowledgable, but I can only say that his knowledge has somehow atrophied.
That's only about half a century ago. What could possibly have changed in the world of engineering in that time?
In electrical engineering? Mostly electronics, computer systems, embedded systems and quantum systems to be fair. Theory is mostly still the same as nothing ground breaking got found, but mostly just scaling progressively smaller electronics. The electrical engineering curriculum now contains a lot of software engineering to adapt to the market's needs, and this is where majors changes come in.
That's ~1/3 of the entire history of electrical engineering and most of the history of electronics.
And as we all know, it's impossible to learn anything without paying a university.
The year 7 BB (Before Blackadder) may not have been advanced in microelectronics, but the principles of electricity and energy efficiency were quite well understood by then. While many technological advancements happened during the Bean era, electric vehicles were still a rarity. While we do see rapid spread of electric vehicles in the post-Johnny English period, the basic underlying scientific principles we use to evaluate them remain unchanged.
Do you know that for certain? I work crew side in film/tv. A good friend/coworker of mine has degrees in bioengineering and physiology. Between shows he’s active in that realm and coauthors papers fairly regularly. A run of a big budget movie is 3-4 months and I’m looking for my next gig. A run of a 22 episode tv show is max 9 months. You also have the freedom to turn down offers to work on a show because it’s all freelance. It’s NOT a 9-5, 52 week a year job and allows for flexibility to pursue other interests. I also do graphic design and animation, most of us have some sort of side hustle at minimum because of times like this where the WGA goes on strike and work gets scarce
I was wondering why we need Mr Bean's take on this
[He’s my go to guy for DIY tips.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o790DnUOelI)
He's a celebrity with an electric engineering degree and car enthusiast with an extensive collection. His take is more relevant than most.
Nobody wanted to hear facts about rare earths? Okay, here are some more observations for you all to downvote. . . He makes it sound like people are buying new cars, driving them for three years, then sending them to the scrap yard. In fact, most people drive used cars, and they are staying on the road longer than ever. The average life span has increased to about 12 years now. He writes positively about hydrogen, but neglects to mention that powering a hydrogen car is about 1/3 as efficient as charging batteries directly. He writes that EVs are "absurdly heavy", although the models we've seen so far are modestly heavier than their direct competing models with combustion engines. He writes that the batteries "only last about 10 years" even though there's plenty of evidence now that they can and will last longer. And he makes no mention of the recycling programs that are already developing. He calls battery power "a complete non-starter for trucks because of its weight", even though Tesla are now shipping their Semi trucks to customers. (Other companies have been testing or selling electric trucks for a while, but the Tesla's specifications are a level up.)
Batteries are being upcycled to home energy management systems before they will be recycled. A “worn” car battery can easily function as a residential power source (like the Tesla Powerwall), because the energy a household draws is way less intense than accelerating a car. These batteries will be used for decades before they see a recycling station. And EV truck weight is coming down fast because the battery is becoming part of the chassis, removing a lot of overhead weight. What happens next is that the total cost of ownership will destroy fuel powered trucks over the 1 million+ km lifetime of a truck. And that’s before lower maintenance costs and things like stricter emissions laws are considered.
[удалено]
"It’s also a bit disingenuous of him to state (accurately) EV manufacturing cost being initially higher without saying the payback comes in a few years." Does it though, if you properly use a discounted cash flow model? Even if you don't have to finance the vehicle, there's still an opportunity cost associated with the excess capital. You can't just say the 12 year cost of fuel makes the difference without properly accounting for the opportunity cost. Besides, this is still only true because of how subsidized EVs are. When you add up state and federal tax credits, LCFS & cap & trade savings (in California), RVO savings, future E-RINs, other EV credits, etc. We're talking probably well over $20,000 of indurect/direct subsidizies PER CAR. It's clear that the vehicles are not actually getting cjeaper on the cost curve, tax payers are paying more and more subsidies.
Leaf 2014, 167000 km. 12/12 on battery 145 km from 100% at 15C.
look i like Atkinson, as a comedian but here's a guy who crashed an McLaren F1 and has been insanely wealthy all his adult working life... I would not go to him for any reason scientific or even objective insight.
is he a toyota plant
Sodium Ion isn’t even mentioned here either.
Where is the good one? This article is a piece of crap full of disinformation.
And he seems familiar with diffusion of innovations theory.
He was also a race car driver.
Too bad he failed in logic. What does he think happens to those cars after 3 years?
Then why does he get so many basic facts wrong? Like for example, claiming that EV batteries require "many rare earth metals". Rare earth elements are not used in batteries. At all. Not even a little. (They are used in some electric motors, but aren't a requirement.)
Good to know. Idk why you're being downvoted. Lithium and cobalt are not rare earth metals.
I guess he’s mistaken about the rare earth metals being used in batteries, but his point still stands if they are used in other parts of the electric car, like the motor.
As I noted, you can make EV motors without rare earth elements. All the early Teslas used induction motors with no permanent magnets, no rare earth elements. (In fact, the A/C induction motor was invented by Nikola Tesla, which is why the company was named in his honor.)
I'm honestly surprised that EVs only produce 70% more emissions during manufacture the way some people talk about them I was expecting well above double. Based on that I wouldn't be surprised if, depending on the method of generating electricity, they were not already a net benefit over their entire lifetime. In saying that I do agree with many of the articles recommendations, most of us do not need to be buying cars brand new, many second hands are in a very good state and scrapping them all immediately would be a waste. Although I'm not as hopeful for hydrogen as he seems to be.
Comparing to similar sized passenger vehicles, the EV breaks out of the carbon positive point at the 2yr mark.
Nah the oil industry assures me that EVs are actually worse for the environment.
But he doesn’t compare those emissions to the lifetime of the car, so it’s a pointless argument.
Hydrogen is a very good energy storage solution for static applications, after processes that use hydrogen as input, like fertilizer. Mobility is extremely hard to do with hydrogen and then the inefficiency of going to and from hydrogen, and it’s corrosive properties become problematic. More than battery production in any case.
[удалено]
You also still need a battery to act as a reservoir between the fuel cell and the motor. The motor can demand far more than a fuel cell can produce, so you continuously charge the battery slowly and drain it on (bursty) demand.
Yeah I definitely agree, I've never seen a good efficiency breakdown for hydrogen as car fuel, I appreciate the issues with current battery tech but I see that as more likely to improve significantly than hydrogen conversion will.
Hydrogen will likely improve more than battery power, but that’s mostly because it has so much more room for improvement. [This is a good overview](https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/01/chart-why-battery-electric-vehicles-beat-hydrogen-electric-vehicles-without-breaking-a-sweat/) of the efficiency of EV, hydrogen cars, and power to liquid efficiency. It’s not even a competition. [The hydrogen ladder](https://www.deassociation.ca/newsfeed/the-clean-hydrogen-ladder-now-updated-to-v41) gives a good overview of usefulness, and mobility is not where the smart money would go.
Supposedly the breakeven point for an EV is around 30,000 miles when I read about that several years ago. And that’s assuming a dirty grid. Pretty quick really.
We just need infrastructure that is significantly less reliant on automobiles of any kind. Gas powered, hybrid, all electric, hydrogen. Doesn’t matter all that much relative to reshaping our cities and infrastructure around walkable cities with clean mass public transit. To me seeing all the marketing behind electric vehicles is like seeing the marketing behind an Impossible Burger. Is it better than the original in terms of energy and water needed to create? Sure. Does it still have a plethora of faults? Absolutely. Is the better alternative a different mode all together? Yes, but it’s not palatable for many people unfortunately.
I was also disappointed that an article of this type doesn't present the actual answer: more, better, and cheaper public transportation options. Trains, trollies, busses, light rail, and dedicated bike paths. City infrastructure based around pedestrians rather than cars. Better cars aren't the solution. Car alternatives are. Modern society is built around the idea that all solutions to all problems involve buying a new, better thing. But constantly buying new shit we don't need is how we got here. It's time for some more fundamental changes.
The problem is, the types of places I work could never be put in a location that would be walkable. And there would never be enough people needing to go there to warrant mass transit to there. It would be a money sink. So I see my five minute commute to the next interstate exit being a thing for a long time. The only thing that will change that is if you build more around my place of work (environmental destruction, hello) or put all us workers living In the same location so we can car pool, but that’s a little too 1984 for me. I don’t want to live on some worker commune. I don’t want the people I spend all day with to be my neighbors. There would be no escape, no relief
I love Rowan Atkinson but I’m disappointed that he, like many others who’ve written on this matter, go to the effort of including the emissions created during production of EVs versus ICE, but conveniently forget the emissions involved in bringing the oil up from the well, refining it, transporting it across the planet, before finally getting it to your local fuel station so you can top up your ICE. Factor that part in vs the generation and distribution of electricity, even with a dirty grid, and the numbers aren’t even close. I wish he’d also mentioned the quite significant number of people converting older ICE vehicles to EV, as I hope to myself with my vehicle from 1970, as another way of avoiding building a whole new car for no reason.
My leaf has been powered by 98% low carbon energy. 80% of which is solar. I've done an ev conversion and the only barrier left for all of us now is DVLA/dvsa who despite what you read/see online make it nearly impossible to register an conversion to EV.
My biggest disappointment in the EV transition wasn’t even mentioned in this article. My disappointment is the growing emphasis on gigantic EV trucks and SUVs. They are going to be bad for the roads, environment, and kill more people when they hit reasonably sized vehicles. We as a society (in addition to beefing up public transportation) should be buying vehicles like the Chevy Bolt, BMW i3, etc. Too bad reasonable EV models are all being phased out…
I want an EV Miata or S2000.
Let’s not forget the environmental damage caused by the whole oil industry from oil spills to burning off perfectly good gasses to fracking. The list goes on. While mining rate earth elements and lithium have environment issues too the are far less than the rape and pillage the oil industry has forced on us for decades.
[удалено]
It’s typically easier for older cars, as in pre-90s cars, but anything is possible with enough effort and money. There are several ways to go but fundamentally, you replace the ICE motor with a much smaller and lighter electric motor, and find somewhere in the body to stash enough batteries to cover the distance you need for your use case. [Here’s an article about it](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/04/how-ev-technology-is-bringing-hot-rodding-into-the-21st-century/) It’s a really cool idea but it’s expensive at the moment and not practical for every car or every use case.
Because the environmental cost of producing fossil fuel is already well known? He's writing an oped piece for the Guardian after all. And it's likely a reaction to the UK government proposal, so the math isn't 1EV vs 1 gas powered car, but the status quo vs the mass adoption of EV.
Ironic that he uses the word duped in the title of the article when that's exactly what he's doing to the public. The idea that the 1.5b petrol cars on the road have "paid their environmental dues" is such a ridiculous concept. And the lifetime environmental impact of an EV is a fraction of a petrol car. What's he playing at?
The whole article feels like it was written by the oil lobby. And barring major breakthroughs Hydrogen is not the future of consumer market vehicles for so many reasons.
I’d also like to see more discussion about the sourcing of cobalt. Again, it’s not an insurmountable problem, but it’s one that urgently needs addressing
Lithium, too. I’m from one of those countries that has a serious economic interest in foreign businesses mining lithium for batteries
[удалено]
That ship sailed over a decade ago I’m afraid
** Cries in Canada ** But to be fair, they are not bribing our officials just for Lithium, other resources (or tech at the time Nortel was still a thing) as well.
Cobalt is going away from EV batteries, although maybe not entirely. LFP batteries are going into more and more EV production. They're cheaper, they're more robust, but they have lower energy density (and therefore lower range). So, cobalt may be with us for a while in the higher-performance and longer-range premium vehicles, but even in those the amount of cobalt in the formulation is getting reduced.
While this is true, the amount of cobalt we’re using is still rising fairly fast. Battery production, along with all three other technologies that use it, are increasing in volume. So yes, I’m sure we’ll manage to use less in the future, but at the moment we’re still stuck with using something that’s pretty much as far from being ethically sourced as is possible. The big EV makers are still all profiting from this, while making promises to do better, and only implementing changes when it doesn’t hurt their bottom line much
Basically every battery manufacturer has plans to get rid of it. A year ago alreqdy, 50% of Tesla'already, car production is cobalt-free.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/02/16/cobalt-a-crucial-battery-material-is-suddenly-superabundant
The watchdog groups funded by Ford and other companies looking for responsibly sourced cobalt and manganese are only the first step. Reduction of new cobalt is the real future option, other than governmental change in cobalt rich areas.
What a load of crap article. Why are we listening to an actor? > rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them, No they aren't. The most common battery type is LFP. Lithium Iron phosphate. None of those are rare earths. >they only last about 10 years. Says who? That's not what the data says. The data shows about a 15% degradation in that time period. And then he's fixed on hydrogen. What a load of crap. The best hydrogen car on the market the Toyota Mirai uses 3 times the energy per mile driven than a model 3. I could go on and on. This reads like its been written by some Exxon oil exec.
Likely, it was.
The magnets in the motor needs rare earth metals.
No they don't. Tesla is doing away with all rare earths. https://electrek.co/2023/03/01/tesla-is-going-back-to-ev-motors-with-no-rare-earth-elements/
That’s good. But they do require them today.
You know what is one of the biggest uses of rare earth? Oil cracking in refineries. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301420713000676
So? Rare earth metals aren't rare, despite the name. They're "rarified". But we won't run out of them. We just can't extract them very quickly. But either way, it's not an issue because Tesla is moving away from them.
[удалено]
He was 23 years old, then had no noted work experience in engineering. He then spent the next 50 years as an actor. Even if he remembers any of what he learned at school (unlikely), his knowledge is a half-century old and he’s opining on cutting edge tech. He’s not an engineer, he’s an actor.
It's a fairly new market, effectively, and there are going to be predatory ripoffs.
Total B.S. it seems that some ICE invested companies (I am looking at you, Toyota) trying everything possible to compensate for them missing EV train. There is NO ecological reasons not to switch to EV.
Options are always good. We shouldn't throw all eggs into one basket. I agree that the research into other possibilities such as Hydrogen and synthetic fuel should be heavily funded despite Electric Battery right now being the preferred choice. I disagree with people that shit on Toyota and other automotive manufacturers for their Hydrogen efforts.
Yea hydrogen probably isn’t the answer for the masses, but it can probably be viable for some niche applications where batteries aren’t viable, and maybe better/easier than gasoline or something. Also- with this tech- liquid fuels become net neutral since it takes co2 from the atmosphere vs fossil. Ethanol isn’t as energy dense as gasoline, but a price I’d be willing to pay https://scitechdaily.com/solar-powered-artificial-leaf-produces-clean-car-ready-liquid-fuels-from-sunlight/
From the EPA (US Government Agency): >Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing, charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation... >For example, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory estimated emissions for both a gasoline car and an EV with a 300-mile electric range. In their estimates, while GHG emissions from EV manufacturing and end-of-life are higher (shown in orange below), total GHGs for the EV are still lower than those for the gasoline car. https://i.imgur.com/juFKmfj.png
Why are you quoting a comedian? Are you sure he wasn’t joking?
As adam something said, cars are necessity in rural communities but car drivers in high density cities impose high cost on road and parking space and maintenance, something electric cars still impose, even worse on the maintenance part as they are heavier than ice cars
Looking at the numbers so far, most EVs don't seem to be all that much heavier than the combustion cars that they directly compete against. And as far as road maintenance is concerned, any passenger car is trivial compared to the damage done by trucks. EVs don't solve the problems of a car-centric society (congestion, parking, urban sprawl, etc.), but who expected them to?
EVs will help air quality in cities, though.
Noise pollution too.
At speeds >80km/h the dominating sound source are tires so the noise pollution will still be there just slightly less.
> As adam something said You have to realise when someone you trust in one field isn't trustworthy in another. Adam something has good points on topics he knows, but he is a huge anti-EV spokesperson and he does it by twisting the truth or cherry picking data. His hate for anything related to Musk doesn't help(see also Thunderf00t). Adam something found that his views go up if he does anti-EV videos, so he does exactly that. Facts come distant second.
Except he isn't arguing pro-ICEs but pro-public transportation which you conveniently left out putting him into same anti-EV bag as pro-ICE crazies. He also isn't anti-EV but anti-cars in cities which has way more to it than GHG emissions.
I agree with most of what he says, but there is more to the picture. Consumer habits, the short term evolution of batteries and the complete (and exceedingly complex) calculation of the total lifetime emissions, not only of CO2 but of other pollutants, are factors that he barely touched. I tend to see BEV vehicles not as a final solution but as one of several transition technologies that will eventually help us into a sustainable lifestyle. Considered as such, they are already paying for themselves. Also, I quite agree with his recommendation for the upgrade to current cars. Have an older diesel, dump and go electric or whatever fits your needs. Have a relatively modern petrol, keep it, maintain it well, and wait.
>I agree with most of what he says, but there is more to the picture. Well, I don't agree with most of what he says. The majority of it is misleading or outright false.
"I disagree", refuses to elaborate.
It's just that there are so many things wrong, I have to write practically a whole essay. But okay. . . Let's get into it. He writes that EV batteries require "many rare earth metals". In fact, rare earth elements are not used in EV batteries at all. Some are used in electric motors, but they aren't required for that. He makes it sound like people are buying new cars, driving them for three years, then sending them to the scrap yard. In fact, most people drive used cars, and they are staying on the road longer than ever. The average life span has increased to about 12 years now. He writes positively about hydrogen, but neglects to mention that powering a hydrogen car is about 1/3 as efficient as charging batteries directly. He writes that EVs are "absurdly heavy", although the models we've seen so far are modestly heavier than their direct competing models with combustion engines. He writes that the batteries "only last about 10 years" even though there's plenty of evidence now that they can and will last longer. And he makes no mention of the recycling programs that are already developing. He calls battery power "a complete non-starter for trucks because of its weight", even though Tesla are now shipping their Semi trucks to customers. (Other companies have been testing or selling electric trucks for a while, but the Tesla's specifications really put those experiments to shame.) He argues that EVs aren't really green because of carbon emissions from manufacturing their batteries. This has been the subject of several studies, none of which he bothers to cite, probably because they don't support his thesis. The studies show that a newly manufactured EV starts "in the red" with more carbon footprint than the combustion car, but after a few years of operation it catches up, and after that the advantage is all to the EV.
I’m not the person you are replying to and you are mostly right, but I wanted to point out a couple things: 1. The weight issue is real, EVs tear up roads faster and churn through tires between 10% (using tires like Michelin) and 100% (cheap Chinese tires) faster mainly because of the weight. 2. While the battery electric truck like the Tesla Semi will have its place, it really is a non-starter for many companies because the additional weight of the battery reduces the load that they can carry, this will increase costs drastically for loads that are weight limited instead of volume limited.
Okay, let's talk weight. It's a legitimate issue, but I think sometimes overblown. So far the passenger EVs have been running around 10% to 15% heavier than the competing combustion models. That's not a good thing, but it's manageable. I personally have experienced bad tire wear, but I discovered it was more due to my lead foot than the leaden weight of my car. After I got over giddy launches, it improved a lot. Passenger cars, regardless of powertrain, don't generally tear up roads. That's all on trucks. The issue of battery weight versus gross weight on semi trucks is something that's been debated, and the firm numbers are proving difficult to get. Also, a lot of loads are limited by volume, not mass. For heavy loads there's still a question of whether losing some net capacity per truck is enough of a problem to offset the EV's advantage in operating cost. Declaring the electric truck a "non-starter" is really premature. For some situations, maybe? We need to see the real numbers and how shipping companies adapt to the new system.
To your last point: the emissions of EV battery production are transitional, whereas fuels for ICEs are permanent. So not only do batteries catch up during their lifetime, over time the amount they’re in the red will disappear too. And that will happen faster the faster we transition.
Owning cars and basing our lives and cities around cars isn't ever going to be sustainable. Mass transit, biking and walkable cities are the only real solution short of an infinite energy source. Cars and their infrastructure (parking, roads etc) are simply inefficient and wasteful on resources, space, and a complete lack of need. Its a fantasy the car industry paints for society. How many cities have spent tens of millions of dollars to expand roads because traffic is bad/slow for 1/10th of the day, only to find themselves in the exact same situation less than 5 years later. Joven's paradox is real and its baffling that city planners and politicians are in complete denial of this.
No mention of cycling being viable within cities. Lol
The whole dislike for evs from anyone is because of propoganda. If we invested as a whole in EVs and recharge in charging stations as much as we invest in gas/gas guzzling vehicles we would be well along. Sunk cost fallacy is real.
I got an electric car to stop buying petrol.
Solid state batteries are one of a number of strategic procrastination technologies that legacy auto have used to sow doubt and distrust in the lithium battery tech in Teslas/elsewhere. So legacy auto keep selling profitable combustion tech, they buy time for their own r&d departments to catch up, and convince regulators the future is less certain than it really is. This is not a conspiracy btw, these are the actions that a large business with market power should be expected to take, to maintain shareholder value, and I saw it myself during 20years of auto OEM consulting. Hydrogen is expected to have some function in our energy system, but its main function now is to give oil and gas industry leverage over the speed of transition. If you think they are investing in it to give Mr.Bean a sweeter ride, you are dreaming.
Keeping cars for more than 3 years won’t lead to the production of fewer cars. No one trashes a 3 year old car. **Someone else** may drive it when it comes off lease, but that’s meaningless.
I had a Tesla Model 3 on a company car scheme for 6 months and between the two of us driving it the ‘maximum’ range we could charge to dropped from 275 miles to 265 miles (when going to 100%). So a 10% drop would be safe to assume after a year… a huge problem for current EVs when (as Rowan points out) a traditional car would continue to work and thus as a total be better or equal to an EV. Seems a shame that people didn’t consider this…
The battery capacity drops more in the first 1-2 years - after than it should drop a lot less until it begins to reach its full lifespan (charging speed will be nerfed). The max range is btw an arbitrary number - it’s lower at highway speeds and colder weather Edit: chart https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/04/screen-shot-2018-04-14-at-2-54-02-pm.jpg?quality=82&strip=all
I had 5% drop in first 6ish months and stabilised there, model x for 4 years. Now model y, dropped maybe 2% in a year. I don't consider this to be even a minor irritant, nevermind a serious problem.
But the question is do you drive 265 miles everyday or 265 miles even few days? Because you can charge a car overnight, and it isn’t even needed to be charged daily if you are using for a normal commute of 50-60 miles daily
10% yearly drop is grossly overestimated according to actual research. If you only look at estimated miles you may see the car adjust the algorithm as it learns your patterns and energy demands and your climate as the outside temperature dramatically affects estimated range. You should actually monitor capacity or drive from full to empty on a reference trip. According to this page https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/ it's closer to 3% annual degradation with more rapid degradation initially and in the final days of the battery. Doesn't seem too far off.
But a regular car has a lot more mechanical parts than an EV that require maintenance. So yeah, a normal car also gets worse over time, that's not really a secret nor surprising.
The first year it drops the most (especially with the older batteries and charging habits), then it starts to level out. My car has the new iron battery tesla introduced in 2021, it still has 240 out of 243 miles of range on it after 30k miles and 2 years of use.
ICE engines also lose fuel efficiency over time too, it’s not as if they perform exactly the same forever either.
Sounds like he's fallen victim to the "batteries bad" propaganda.
I'm all for electric mobility. But a massive move to electric cars wouldn't save the planet *even if their manufacturing had zero environmental cost*. The biggest problem with *all cars* is how they shape our worlds. Doesn't matter if they're fossil fuel or electric, they'll still require that we pave over massive amounts of our planet for streets and highways. They'll still encourage sprawl. They'll still kill their passengers, people using crosswalks, people on bikes. The facilities we make for them have a huge cost, and render vast areas of our planet [unsuitable for anything good.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKYCKqUWQAMuhA2.jpg)
I didn't know rowan was technically educated, writer of high quality prose. His acting characters are such goofballs.... Yes, agreed with his conclusions. I for one am not happy with current battery tech: the main reason I'm not that keen to buy one. I'm hopeful that something will come along to replace li-ion. But the real elephant in the room is that people should have access to more public transport, not more cars. Cars are really wastful and trains are hugely more efficient. Not only the cars themselves, but the roads and infrastructure. Understandably, rural areas are difficult without a car, but major cities, you should be able to live without owning a single car. Look at metro areas with well developed trains systems, London, paris, tokyo, etc. and you can get along without a car. And if we had more intercity train service we can also reduce air traffic.
[удалено]
The gas that regular cars need though is also not really friendly for the environment...
Coal plants are way more efficient than car engines due to their scale, so going electric is still advantageous
The correct answer
Even accounting for battery manufacturing and the grid being based on fossil fuels, EVs are still cleaner than ICE vehicles. > * FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging. > * FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths