←back to thread

Climate Change Tracker

(climatechangetracker.org)
447 points Brajeshwar | 2 comments | 03 Sep 23 14:53 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
alexchamberlain ◴[03 Sep 23 17:11 UTC] No.37372056[source]▶
I'm starting to wonder whether the conventional wisdom of reducing carbon emissions in favour of more electricalisation is really solving the actual problem. As is often pointed out on HN, electrical cars are substantially heavier than their fossil fueled alternatives, and generate other pollution along the way. Furthermore, we're digging our lithium brines from the environment, without really understanding what all this lithium will do once it's leached out into the environment or what impact the mines themselves will have.

With the recent advances of turning CO2 into other substances, such as propane, should we be focusing more on closing the carbon cycle and simply be producing fossil fuels from the waste products of yesteryear?

Naively, it feels like we understand C, O and H, better than we understand some of the rare metals we're now introducing in the name of climate change.

replies(23): >>37372234 #>>37372279 #>>37372323 #>>37372344 #>>37372367 #>>37372392 #>>37372424 #>>37372432 #>>37372470 #>>37372510 #>>37372513 #>>37372556 #>>37372583 #>>37372634 #>>37372660 #>>37372760 #>>37372813 #>>37372854 #>>37373016 #>>37373143 #>>37374057 #>>37375338 #>>37382221 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[03 Sep 23 18:05 UTC] No.37372634[source]▶
> As is often pointed out on HN, electrical cars are substantially heavier than their fossil fueled alternatives

Curb weight:

  Ford Taurus: 3917 lbs.
  BMW 330i: 3536 lbs.
  Tesla Model 3: 3862 lbs.
Is this supposed to be a massive difference?

> With the recent advances of turning CO2 into other substances, such as propane, should we be focusing more on closing the carbon cycle and simply be producing fossil fuels from the waste products of yesteryear?

There is nothing prohibiting anybody from doing this. Make it cost effective and people will buy it. But those things are all theoretical or uneconomical right now, so until that changes we should carry on with the thing we know works.

replies(3): >>37372844 #>>37372976 #>>37373775 #
1. gottorf ◴[03 Sep 23 19:51 UTC] No.37373775[source]▶
> Is this supposed to be a massive difference?

I'm not sure how helpful it is to compare different cars.

Here's a more apples-to-apples comparison: a 2023 Kia Niro (which is itself a conventional hybrid, with a gasoline engine and a small battery and electric motor) compared to a 2023 Kia Niro EV. Almost everything is the same except the drivetrain. The EV[0] is ~500-800lbs heavier than the hybrid[1] depending on trim level and options, which is basically the difference between an empty car and one loaded with four adults and some luggage.

[0]: https://www.kiamedia.com/us/en/models/niro-ev/2023/specifica...

[1]: https://www.kiamedia.com/us/en/models/niro/2023/specificatio...

replies(1): >>37374381 #
2. AnthonyMouse ◴[03 Sep 23 20:46 UTC] No.37374381[source]▶
> Almost everything is the same except the drivetrain.

Which is kind of the problem, because it implies they took a frame designed for the ICE powertrain and stuck some batteries it, which isn't the optimal way to do it.

Even then the difference is in the nature of 20%, which doesn't seem huge?

And the weight is going to be directional proportional to the size of the battery, which can be of arbitrary size. Electric vehicles with a >250 mile range are nice, but the average commute is a sixth of that.

I'm fairly expecting someone to soon make a sporty little sedan with a 75 mile range and a trailer for road trips that adds +300 miles worth of battery and gives you a place to put your luggage. And then you don't need the trailer 98% of the time and that thing is going to be actually lighter than the equivalent ICE car.