Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[henry]

China’s birth rate was in decline when it introduced the 1 child policy in 1979 and perversely the birth rate went up. It then went down and has continued to drop even though the policy was “eased” in 2013 and stopped in 2015. This somewhat supports @Just_a_fan’s points about wealth and education. China now has a problem of not enough young people to fuel its economy. See https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ ... birth-rate

It’s very likely that there are no simple solutions to reducing CO2 output and in particular at a per country level. Just at the point the world needs to come together to address this, and many other of the issues our exploitation is causing, we’re fragmenting. When we should be trading solutions we are trading insults.

To paraphrase Hobbes, we are entitled to as much personal CO2 generation as leaves enough that everyone else can do the same. I would suggest that’s around a tonne a year.

Depending on Energy source an electric car will potentially reduce the average U.K. driver’s output at most by a couple of tonnes per year. That still leaves a long way to go.

[Just_a_fan]

Depending on Energy source an electric car will potentially reduce the average U.K. driver’s output at most by a couple of tonnes per year. That still leaves a long way to go.

Interestingly, the UK is actually a "good guy" in the reducing CO2 emissions game. We've almost halved our emissions (on a per capita basis) between 1980 and 2018 from 10.3t to 5.6t. France is similar (9.1t to 5.0t). Interestingly, Germany (which is held up as a "good guy" by some green types) has done rather badly, still being at 9.0t per capita in 2018.

China has gone from 1.5t in 1980 to 8t in in 2018. The US has made improvements (down from 20.8t to 16.1t) but is still a big emitter per capita. Australia has increased.

To think that you'll get the UK down to 1t is amusing. To think that you'll get China or the US down to that level is, frankly, deluded. The people of the US won't say goodbye to their resource-profligate lifestyle, just as others don't see why they shouldn't aspire to that same lifestyle. It's a sad irony that the expansion of the US cultural empire (as opposed to the old fashioned land empires such as the UK had) has opened the eyes of so many to a way of life that the planet can't support. People see the homes, the cars, the malls, the individual consumption through films, TV programmes, the internet etc., and say "I want some of that". And I certainly don't blame them, or the US, for doing so. But sadly, it's not going to be possible. So either the majority of the world will have to continue a resource-poor existence, or all of us will have to accept a less-than-ideal one. I know which way that argument is going to go - ask our US friends in here how they feel about giving up the lifestyles they have individually worked hard to achieve. Ask my neighbours in the UK, or in Europe the same question and you'll get the same answer everywhere (with varying expletives thrown in, no doubt ).

It's tough one to sort out. I think it will require an international disaster to knock heads together. How many will suffer in the course of that? Too many.

[Andres125sx]

Interestingly, the UK is actually a "good guy" in the reducing CO2 emissions game. We've almost halved our emissions (on a per capita basis) between 1980 and 2018 from 10.3t to 5.6t. France is similar (9.1t to 5.0t). Interestingly, Germany (which is held up as a "good guy" by some green types) has done rather badly, still being at 9.0t per capita in 2018.

China has gone from 1.5t in 1980 to 8t in in 2018. The US has made improvements (down from 20.8t to 16.1t) but is still a big emitter per capita. Australia has increased.

Interesting data, and enlightening about some governments position, thanks

But I hope a disaster is not needed, we're moving in the right direction, hopefully at a correct pace but...

[henry]

Depending on Energy source an electric car will potentially reduce the average U.K. driver’s output at most by a couple of tonnes per year. That still leaves a long way to go.

Interestingly, the UK is actually a "good guy" in the reducing CO2 emissions game. We've almost halved our emissions (on a per capita basis) between 1980 and 2018 from 10.3t to 5.6t. France is similar (9.1t to 5.0t). Interestingly, Germany (which is held up as a "good guy" by some green types) has done rather badly, still being at 9.0t per capita in 2018.

China has gone from 1.5t in 1980 to 8t in in 2018. The US has made improvements (down from 20.8t to 16.1t) but is still a big emitter per capita. Australia has increased.

...

It's tough one to sort out. I think it will require an international disaster to knock heads together. How many will suffer in the course of that? Too many.

The U.K. has changed a lot partly by reducing manufacturing and its CO2 cost, its also reduced coal use and increased wind and solar. The US has likewise reduced manufacturing. Some of the reduced manufacturing around the world has arrived in China and accounts for some of its increase, China’s reliance on Coal has exacerbated that.

1 tonne may be delusional in a practical sense but that doesn’t mean it’s not where we need to arrive, every year we defer is another year the climate is more affected and the oceans increase in acidity, the major effects, changes that will stay in place for generations to come.

As for “worked hard to achieve”, there are plenty of folk in low consumption sub Saharan Africa working just as hard. The only difference is their choice of parents.

But you’re right. International disaster is probably what it will take and whilst many of the haves will suffer the have nots will likely suffer more, and that will likely be within economies as well as between them.

Looking at the article @J.A.W. posted about the scale of electric vehicle consumption in the US the numbers are frightening. To even get US vehicle emissions to 1 tonne/vehicle/annum would require both a massive change in generation mix and a change in vehicle type. The analysis in the article is flawed in that it assumes a per vehicle electricity rate of consumption on a small passenger vehicle, sedan, when they account for only about a third of the miles covered, 1.25 trillion out of 3.25 trillion. The rest is in trucks and heavy goods vehicles. My guess is that even if it were possible to electrify the whole fleet the electricity demands would be 3 times higher.

As you have said there will need to be some changes in life style and behaviour and those changes will be quite large.

[henry]

Ocean acidification is real, and a problem for sea creatures, and people who rely on them. Unlike atmospheric CO2, where there is potentially the opportunity to do carbon capture, CO2 dissolved in the oceans doesn’t appear to be readily reversible.

This headline is in the journal of the World Economic Forum

Carbon emissions are raising the acidity of the Pacific Ocean, leaving Dungeness crabs defenseless

https://apple.news/AGipgLYGST6a8A3pNYrloxg

[Tommy Cookers]

Ocean acidification is real, and a problem for sea creatures, and people who rely on them......

marine lakes (these are warmer and more acid than adjacent ocean waters) show otherwise
ie that coral other populations adapt quite quickly to the conditions

[Andres125sx]

Ocean acidification is real, and a problem for sea creatures, and people who rely on them......

marine lakes (these are warmer and more acid than adjacent ocean waters) show otherwise
ie that coral other populations adapt quite quickly to the conditions

Quite quickly might be too subjective I´m afraid. 10000 years is quite quickly from a biological point of view, any animal or vegetal adapting to new conditions in 10000 years is adapting quite quickly. Normally it takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions years

But at current pace oceans life should adapt in 100 years, wich is simply imposible for any form of life, animal or vegetal.

This is where negacionists failt miserably, stating there has been periods with higher CO2 concentrations, but ignoring (intentionally, or just by ignorance) those increases normally took tenths or hundreds millions years, while currently we´re facing a change in less than a century, wich is just a millionth of that.

Anyone really expect any form of life to adapt to new conditions in a millionth of what it normally takes?



Edit: Coral reefs do not adapt to this fast changing conditions, they simply dissapear, and with them a whole ecosystem
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... sco-sites/

[Just_a_fan]

Ocean acidification is real, and a problem for sea creatures, and people who rely on them......

marine lakes (these are warmer and more acid than adjacent ocean waters) show otherwise
ie that coral other populations adapt quite quickly to the conditions

Um, coral reefs are dying off now. They aren't adapting, they're dying.

Now, sure some other species might come along and colonise the place where the previous corals were, but that is not "adapting".

[djos]

Yep, boring 1st three quarters, but last quarter has been epic!

Damn i gave up at half time! I'll watch the rest off disc then. It's quite interesting seeing where Liberty are coming from

I know it's off-season and we're all as bored as sh1t, but why are Australians even interested in the Superbowl on an F1 tech site? Was there an F1 ad at half time? Not trying to start anything, just legitimately intrigued.

I personally like American football, although I don’t have time to watch Much of it these days.

[Just_a_fan]

I rather like watching a bit of baseball now and then, although I don't understand the nuances of it such as the stats given out about batters etc. It's basically rounders with extras but still enjoyable.

We spent three days and evenings in Monterey a few years ago, each evening we went to a bar for beer, burgers and baseball as a wind down after sight seeing, whale watching etc. Rather enjoyed the baseball (beer and burgers too!) and still watch it on TV late in the evening on the odd occasion.

Don't mind a bit of American Football but the Superbowl is on too late when I have to work the next day. I do watch an odd half hour here and there like I do with baseball.

I don't watch Association Football (soccer to you USians, football to the rest of the world) as I can't stand it. Tedious game.

[izzy]

what is a sustainable world population, if everyone had a quality lifestyle? All doing it as sustainably as reasonably possible with electric cars, renewable energy, actual recycling and everything? Some studies say 2 Billion, or 3.1 - https://overpopulation-project.com/what ... of-humans/

either way the point here is that EV's can reduce the ecological footprint and so allow a bigger population than otherwise. Or going the other way if every nation had Superbowls the population would have to be smaller

[Just_a_fan]

I think the idea that EVs are inherently less ecologically damaging is fallacious. EVs have ecological impacts that ICE cars don't, for example. Unless the electricity is all genuinely renewable, it also impacts the environment.

[djos]

I think the idea that EVs are inherently less ecologically damaging is fallacious. EVs have ecological impacts that ICE cars don't, for example. Unless the electricity is all genuinely renewable, it also impacts the environment.

The scientists dont agree with you:

https://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/ ... ssions-953

From cradle to grave, battery-electric vehicles are cleaner. On average, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) representative of those sold today produce less than half the global warming emissions of comparable gasoline-powered vehicles, even when the higher emissions associated with BEV manufacturing are taken into consideration. Based on modeling of the two most popular BEVs available today and the regions where they are currently being sold, excess manufacturing emissions are offset within 6 to 16 months of driving.

[izzy]

I think the idea that EVs are inherently less ecologically damaging is fallacious. EVs have ecological impacts that ICE cars don't, for example. Unless the electricity is all genuinely renewable, it also impacts the environment.

i totally agree! This just keeps happening doesn't it . There's nothing inherent about it, they only make a difference if you generate the electricity renewably. Otherwise, if you burn fossil fuel to charge the batteries, you're burning fossil fuel. Then there's the mining and cobalt and everything, for now at least. But they can reduce the ecological footprint, whereas engines that burn fossil fuel can only burn fossil fuel!

[Just_a_fan]

I think the idea that EVs are inherently less ecologically damaging is fallacious. EVs have ecological impacts that ICE cars don't, for example. Unless the electricity is all genuinely renewable, it also impacts the environment.

The scientists dont agree with you:

https://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/ ... ssions-953

From cradle to grave, battery-electric vehicles are cleaner. On average, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) representative of those sold today produce less than half the global warming emissions of comparable gasoline-powered vehicles, even when the higher emissions associated with BEV manufacturing are taken into consideration. Based on modeling of the two most popular BEVs available today and the regions where they are currently being sold, excess manufacturing emissions are offset within 6 to 16 months of driving.

It's not just emissions though, is it? It's the production of lithium batteries and all of the damage that is causing. Now we might be able to reduce that impact but we need millions of tonnes of lithium to replace the millions of cars. Dig up millions of tonnes of lithium and you're going to make a big mess.