this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023

31 points (100.0% liked)

Science

science@kbin.social

4 readers

6 active

6 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on scientific discoveries, research, and theories across various fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and more. Whether you are a scientist, a science enthusiast, or simply curious about the world around us, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on a wide range of scientific topics. From the latest breakthroughs to historical discoveries and ongoing research, this category covers a wide range of topics related to science.

founded 3 years ago

Life Cycle Emissions: EVs vs. Combustion Engine Vehicles (elements.visualcapitalist.com)

submitted 3 years ago by Tigbitties@kbin.social to c/science@kbin.social

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We look at carbon emissions of electric, hybrid, and combustion engine vehicles through an analysis of their life cycle emissions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 20 points 3 years ago* (18 children)

Are we seeing the same chart? 2/3rds of the carbon emission from the EV comes from the ridiculous way that many communities are still generating electricity. But that's totally fixable!! We are generating more and more electricity thru renewables every day, and eventually nobody will have the audacity to claim that wind turbines are bad for the environment. Or at least no one will believe them.

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] pterodactyl@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago (9 children)

Yes, we're seeing the same chart. Now add a bicycle, or replace 60 stupid little Tesla's with a bus.

We are not at a point where electric car ownership is a viable solution, we're at least 20 years too late. Even the manufacturing cost us too great.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (8 children)

The problem is that you can't simply add bicycles and buses in most places. We fucked up big time when we embraced the car and started living the spread out life. Our cities and rural communities worried literally have to be completely redesigned for that. When I lived in Miami (where I'm from), I rode a bike everywhere. Even though it's very spread out, it's flat and relatively easy to ride around in. Even the rain isn't an issue because while it rains almost every day in the rainy season, you mostly know when it's going to happen. My university was 8 miles from home and that wasn't too bad of a ride. And if something was really far I could ride my bike to whatever bus was going a long way. I couldn't see a lot of people living like that, but it was certainly possible.

But now I live in a rural community in New England. I simply can't ride my bike to school (where I work) everyday. And a bus doesn't make sense because we're all coming from different, spread out places and going to different, spread out places.

Changing how we generate electricity is orders of magnitude easier than trying to convince 400 million people to change how and where they live. It's as simple as that.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] pterodactyl@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago (7 children)

It's not enough. Cutting transport emissions by two thirds is simply not enough. We can change planning now to make it hurt slightly less when we have to get rid of cars or we can continue the current path and leave a load of people stranded when the rug gets pulled, which do you think sounds better?

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Invalid@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago (6 children)

So it’s what then? Genocide? A new trail of tears where people are forced to leave their rural homes and move into massive cities that don’t currently exist?

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] pterodactyl@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

Yes, those are the two sole options, cars and genocide. Fucking idiot. Have you heard of a bus?

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Invalid@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

3.4 billion people live in rural areas around the world. Areas where public transportation is not viable. I’m asking what you would do with them once you take away their only travel option.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] pterodactyl@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

I assume they moved there after the first model t rolled off the production line. Over 80% of the world don't have a car, there is significant overlap with rural people in that.

As I have already said, improve infrastructure, improve public transport, get off your lazy arse and walk more then 5 seconds from your front door.

You don't say you're American but it's so obvious you are, being incapable of functioning without a car isn't normal it's kind of pathetic

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Invalid@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

Bigotry? That’s unfortunate.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] pterodactyl@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago

[deleted]

parent

[–] pterodactyl@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago

Which bit was bigoted? Reality?

parent

[+] eltimablo@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (7 children)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] willisaguy@kbin.social 17 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Your own source says that 1000x more birds are killed by windows. Turbines are a fraction of a percent of human caused bird deaths. Not really a reason to stop making wind turbines. Climate change would be much more disastrous for the birds.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] eltimablo@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago

I'm not saying it's a reason to stop making them, but to say they're entirely without negative environmental impact seems disingenuous.

parent

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago (3 children)

I’m assuming a silent /s here. I certainly hope so.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] eltimablo@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

Why does pointing out a documented issue with wind turbines need to be sarcastic?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Because it's rare to see someone include a link to support their argument, that actually demolishes their argument. Unless that person is being ironic/sarcastic.

To be clear. The articles does not say that wind turbines destroy "entire flocks of birds". It points out that in the grand scheme of things, wind-turbines are a net positive for bird populations, and goes on to say that while numbers of bird deaths aren't negligable - work is going on to reduce numbers further.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] peepquinox@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago

How this happens: person feels a need to prove a point but has literally no knowledge of a subject. Searches for an article they hope will prove their point (for example: “turbine bird deaths”). First article disproves their assertion, skip. Second, third. Ninth looks promising but christ what a long article. CTRL+F until what they see vaguely matches their argument. The rest of the article is probably fine. Copy/paste article URL, type up a “haha so there” comment.

parent

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago

And pollution from fossil fuels is responsible for much, much, much more harm to birds specifically, not to mention all of the other effected species.

parent