You must log in or register to comment.

the--larch t1_jb7ln1g wrote

Someone help me with that math. If 1 in 7 is an EV, how did gas car sales drop 25%?

Fewer new cars being bought?


upL8N8 t1_jb9opz5 wrote

1 in 7 was only last year. In each previous year it was much less. So... the headline is just being silly to try and confuse readers into thinking the decline of ICE car sales is due to EVs.


SilverNicktail t1_jb7mrof wrote

Yeah, production got screwed up the last few years. Lots of unemployment, etc. Fewer car sales overall, but a larger portion of them becoming EVs.


nathansym t1_jb8fzxa wrote

Yes. Chip shortage probably affected new car sales.


mrchaotica t1_jbb91rs wrote

The real TIFU uplifting news is always in the comments.

Fewer people driving in general and using alternatives (walking/biking/transit) instead is what we really need, not just substituting combustion engine cars for EVs.


auyemra t1_jb89x21 wrote

this shit should have happened in the 90s & early 00s, before it was lobbied to death by big oil

if theres one thing Musk did thats good, its forcing the industry to evolve.


Insighteternal t1_jb8hm32 wrote

Funny how most customers back then practically begged to straight up buy the EVs despite the cost…but oil basically said “no, lol.” Stinky combustion vehicle profits were more important /s


tegs_terry t1_jb9l46b wrote

You say '/s', which is fucking horrible anyway, and you don't even have the wherewithal to use it right?


OuidOuigi t1_jb96pfz wrote

And what batteries would they use? People would of hated them.


travyhaagyCO t1_jb9lxk5 wrote

Exactly this, before lithium ion batteries the only option was lead acid batteries. 20 years ago, I tried to convert a VW bug to electric, it was only going to be cable of 40mph and it would need 10 x 12v batteries.


of_patrol_bot t1_jb96q96 wrote

Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.

It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.

Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.

Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.


mrchaotica t1_jbb9vt9 wrote

Nah, people loved their early EVs (GM EV1, along with some converted Rav4s, etc.) even despite the lead acid or NiMH batteries. They just mostly weren't allowed to have them because they were limited-production things, leased instead of sold, and mostly marketed to businesses.


[deleted] t1_jbaq7mp wrote

Lithium batteries have been around since the 70s. Chevy's EV1 in the 90s used a lead acid battery that have it a range of 60 miles. Which is still 10 miles shy of the average commute.

All in all this argument is moot anyway. No one knows if the industry would have survived, grown faster or slower because it was shuttered so quickly, or even stuck around. Chevy made sure no one would be able to keep their EV1 and they literally put them all out to a parking lot to rust.

I will say this about the market though. Without Toyota and the Prius I think Tesla wouldn't have came along as soon or been as successful. If Chevy would have pivoted from strictly EV to a hybrid they would have taken the market from Toyota and would have been way better off from it. But this is all just Monday morning quarterbacking to be honest.


Mythulhu t1_jb91sge wrote

Next step. Put in more public transit for those that can use it. Individual cars are a huge waste


piper4hire t1_jba4f97 wrote

I would add that the focus should be on making public transit better than driving your car. I live in a large city with public transportation but driving is still the better option for most. I work only 2.5 miles from my house. I can drive there in 8 minutes or take public transportation there in 45 minutes.


The_Blue_Adept t1_jbaugi7 wrote

There was a movie back in the day. Sneakers. Dude was building a mass transportation system. His girl at the time says "But I love my car." It kind of sums up the American view give or take. Go with public transport and suffer or go in my car and do things how I want.


Phalex t1_jbbwfpw wrote

One two ton vehicle to transport one pair of buttocks in a luxury.


SFWaccount87 t1_jb7v7sk wrote

This 25% statement does not correlate with EV sales nearly as much as it relates to the last few years of pandemic related detriment. There wasn't cars to sell for the last two years.


luala t1_jb8oqgy wrote

EV are here to save the car industry, not to save the planet we depend on for our survival.


[deleted] t1_jba26e3 wrote



FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbawx58 wrote

Nah, it's car manufacturers being smart and adapting to change. Imagine thinking that bringing in ICE cars to run on hydrogen is a plausible scenario.


[deleted] t1_jbaxi5j wrote



FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbaxy1v wrote

Ok, so now you go and tell all the car manufacturers to create hydrogen fuel cell conversion kits for ICE cars. I'll wait here for 50 years while they figure it out.

I've been with dealerships since 2005. It's not a plausible scenario. We can't even get regular maintenance parts.

Ask these manufacturers if they want to pay to hold classes on tech training for this ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE undertaking you've suggested.

Then, convert all the gas station infrastructure to dispense hydrogen.

Bad faith argument? It's literally easier to just make EV's or make cars that are DESIGNED to run on hydrogen. This is the real world where progress must fight against stubbornness. Your idea looks great on paper but that's it.


FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbawrf1 wrote

You're right. Let's do nothing and see how it goes.


mrchaotica t1_jbbad1u wrote

Nobody said do nothing. Why are you being dishonest?

The thing we really need to be doing is fixing our infrastructure and zoning so walking/biking/transit become more popular, not just substituting EVs for ICE cars while keeping our shitty car-centric sprawl.


FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbbf03y wrote

Nobody is saying that either. This is literally a post about how EV's sales are increasing.

That's a good thing.

Nowhere does it say we should ignore better public transport or pedestrian centered infrastructure.


upL8N8 t1_jbc3x6m wrote

First, the statistics you showed in your headline aren't representative of one another. ICEVs dropped in sales largely because overall auto demand dropped. Only in the last year or two did EV production and sales really pick up. Sure, those sales played a part in helping to reduce ICEVs, but we we still have a long way to go.

Second, EVs do still emit and pollute. We not only need to zero out our global emissions, but also sequester carbon in our atmosphere to get to where we need to be.

Third, the auto industry, lead by Tesla, is taking us down the slowest possible route if the goal is rapid emissions reduction... largely because of government corruption in the form of tax credits, tax abatements, other forms of direct funding and loans, and tradable (aka saleable) carbon credits. Lovingly referred to as "subsidies". Frankly, Tesla (spokescompany for EVs and leading EV producer) would have died without these subsidies, and even if they somehow managed to survive, they wouldn't be anywhere close to the dominant position they're in today. Their sales would likely be a fraction of where they're at. When I think of a realistic technology saving the day... I typically think of technologies that don't need all taxpayers footing the bill so some a-hole CEO at the top can suddenly amass so much wealth as to become the richest person on the planet...

We definitely have to get the 1.4 billion ICEVs off the roads as fast as possible and replace them with plug-in vehicles... or better yet, with alternative forms of transit... yet we're battery cell supply limited and choosing to use up most of those battery cell resources on long range BEVs. Essentially the slowest and least efficient way to rapidly reduce emissions. PHEVs and HEVs would be far quicker; but they're treated like the red headed stepchildren of the auto industry. Today, if we used all of the battery cells to produce only long range BEVs, we could produce 8.2 million long range BEVs per year. (Down from 10.6 million BEVs + PHEVs produced in 2022) If we used all the BEV cells instead to produce PHEVs, we could produce 36.5 million PHEVs and 45 million HEVs... with the same number of batteries. It could have completely removed new ICEV production from the equation last year..

As to what mrchaotica said... if rather than spending all our resources and time on plug-in EVs (aka more automobiles), we instead spent those resources on re-defining transportation by building the necessary infrastructure to reduce overall driving miles, we wouldn't even need to replace all the cars on the planet to rapidly reduce emissions. A PEV (e-bike, e-scooter, EUC, e-sk8) use a tiny percentage of the overall materials and battery cells of a plug-in electric car, especially long range BEVs, and use a tiny percentage of the energy per mile in comparison. If we really cared about rapidly reducing global emissions and pollution, there's your solution.

Less energy for transportation means all of the renewable energy we're producing on our grid can more quickly replace fossil fuel power plants, given that electricity demand wouldn't increase anywhere near as much as it is with needing to charging plug-in EVS every night that use over 6x as much energy to travel a mile.

Combine that with strategies like working from home, 4 day work weeks, lower highway speed limits to improve the efficiency of every car on the road, and carbon taxes to push people to lower their emissions, and we'd have a workable strategy that would be making huge impacts today. Instead we're putting all of our hopes and dreams on the sllloooowwww rollout and expansion of EV automobile production...

I'll tell you this much... at the rate we're going... it'll take a helluva long time to replace all 1.4 billion ICEVs on this planet with long range BEVs. Again, 8.2 million last year.... 1.392 billion ICEVs to go.


mrchaotica t1_jbcfo5y wrote

> As to what mrchaotica said... if rather than spending all our resources and time on plug-in EVs (aka more automobiles), we instead spent those resources on re-defining transportation by building the necessary infrastructure to reduce overall driving miles, we wouldn't even need to replace all the cars on the planet to rapidly reduce emissions. A PEV (e-bike, e-scooter, EUC, e-sk8) use a tiny percentage of the overall materials and battery cells of a plug-in electric car, especially long range BEVs, and use a tiny percentage of the energy per mile in comparison. If we really cared about rapidly reducing global emissions and pollution, there's your solution.

First of all, thank you for supporting my point.

That said, as insane as it sounds since global warming is a huge problem, emissions are actually the least of the problems with cars! The more basic issue is that car-centric development is the root cause for almost all of our other problems, from the housing crisis, to obesity, to poor mental health/lack of socializing (due both to the time/stress of commuting and the lack of "third places" that exclusionary zoning creates).


upL8N8 t1_jbgzzcj wrote

Could take it one step further and suggest that the real issue is greed, laziness, self-centeredness, apathy, entitlement, and lack of forethought. Once you give a person a toy, it's hard to convince them to give it up; especially for a less convenient form of transportation or a smaller house/yard, regardless of whether that alternative helps them/humanity overall or makes their lives better.

Making matters worse, the auto / mining / fuel industries are major global industries. For large regions to suggest we back away from cars instantly leads to lobbying efforts to stop all movement in that direction.

It is interesting that the proposition of creating the option for alternatives is often pushed back against by people in the communities; they simply don't want to pay for things they won't personally utilize, even if many people will utilize it, it'll improve the area, and over time it'll lead to densification around the routes over the coming decades. They don't want to deal with driving around bike lanes, watching out for bikers, less parking, or slower speed limits.

In pushing back, they not only stymie progress, they push the infrastructure in the wrong direction, further towards car centric infrastructure, making it more difficult to install public transit / bike lanes in the future, making it relatively more inconvenient for drivers.

On the plus side, there are 'some' solutions that car companies and communities are having a hard time pushing back against. Namely working from home... WFH was different than bike lanes / public transit in that suddenly a huge percentage of workers were effectively forced to work from home over an extended period of time. Society as a whole all experienced the benefits of working from home, and as a community there was a huge push to continue it.

What if everyone was suddenly told they couldn't drive anymore and had to commute by bike? Over that period, it would no longer be taboo, and people could get a taste of the experience and realize it's not as bad as they may have thought. No fear of cars running them over would be a big plus too.

Given that such a thing will never happen with alternative forms of transit, the only solution is for people to deal with the bullshit infrastructure setup for cars that's a deterrent to bikes / public transit and be a role model and lead by example. If more people do it, communities will think it less weird / inconvenient and be more willing to entertain it, and there will be more people to push our representatives to start expanding the necessary infrastructure.

We're still many many years away before any real pressure can build up, which is sad because if we really wanted to transition today, we could. Everyone could just stop driving, dust off their bikes and ride them, learn public transit routes and use them. Thus my original paragraph... the real issue is greed, laziness, self-centeredness, apathy, entitlement, and lack of forethought.

If emissions / cars are such a massive cataclysmic problem, why are we doing the bare minimum to deal with it?


mrchaotica t1_jbhmyyy wrote

> It is interesting that the proposition of creating the option for alternatives is often pushed back against by people in the communities; they simply don't want to pay for things they won't personally utilize, even if many people will utilize it, it'll improve the area, and over time it'll lead to densification around the routes over the coming decades. They don't want to deal with driving around bike lanes, watching out for bikers, less parking, or slower speed limits.

What's really interesting -- and I'm not faulting you for it, by the way, since it's a super common misconception -- is that this entire argument is backwards!

The real issue isn't that we're trying to spend extra money on alternatives; it's that we're trying to stop spending orders of magnitude more money massively subsidizing driving cars. In reality, those people are on the other side of the selfish spending argument because they're the ones forcing the rest of society to spend money benefiting them.

Remember, bikes don't need special lanes except to make them safe from encroachment by cars.

Driving places isn't inherently better; it only became so because we spent the last century demolishing our perfectly-good downtowns to build parking lots, spending trillions of dollars on highway projects, rewriting zoning codes to force private property owners to provide plentiful "free" parking at their expense, and otherwise bending over backwards to accommodate them.

In contrast, if property owners were free to build traditional development (i.e., if we abolished the government regulation restricting them from doing so) people would freely choose to walk and bike places instead of driving because those would be the quicker/easier/better option.


FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbc5d1q wrote

Are EV's better for the environment in the long term than traditional ICE cars?

Yes or no.


mrchaotica t1_jbcejpp wrote

If by "the environment" you mean the place where humans live, EVs are not better because they take up just as much space and therefore ruin cities with excessive highways and parking lots just as much as ICE cars do.

In the long term, cities have to be made walkable -- not just for fixing global warming, but also for fixing things like obesity, the housing crisis, the fact that the suburbs are financially insolvent, etc. too.


FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbceu1e wrote

Ok now pretend there are places that aren't cities.


mrchaotica t1_jbcncoz wrote

What, you think rural folks are buying EVs?


upL8N8 t1_jbh6o3h wrote

I suggest you do some actual research...,highest%20count%2C%20followed%20by%20Texas.

There's a reason your article didn't show absolute sales figures and only showed sales growth. Start with a tiny number in 2021 and triple it in 2022, and while the percentage growth will show 200%... there are still only a tiny number of sales in that state.

Your link suggests Mississippi saw a "HUGE" increase in Hybrid and EV adoption. Note that they didn't break out the Hybrids from the EVs.. and most people would consider "EVs" to represent the plug-in variety. Why is that?

Most EV sales in the US are in the wealthiest states in the US, as can be seen in my link above. California, Washington, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and other wealthy coastal states. It also just so happens that most of these states are participating in the ZEV tradable credit program, and also offer state EV tax credits. The states with the most sales have also benefited the most from federal EV tax credit programs over the years; essentially transferring wealth from the entire US taxpayer base to those specific states.


FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbh6yli wrote

You said yes, I get it.


upL8N8 t1_jbh74w7 wrote

Do research and stop talking out of your backside. It's good for ya.


FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbh7v7f wrote

You're going to be ok, just take some deep breathes before you launch into another unnecessarily long diatribe about how you always need to find the bad in the good rather than just be happy that at least we are transitioning to a world where we might have clean air and water eventually. What will you do then?


upL8N8 t1_jbkfuev wrote

Facts vs confirmation bias. You were sure your point made sense and you even found an article written by an EV media writer (the bottom of the barrel in terms of journalism) that you believed backed it up. With scrutiny of the data in that article, it's quickly evident that it's not proving high take up rates of EVs in rural areas. Growing take up rates... sure... but if you sold one car last year and 3 this year, it's an amazing 200% growth rate... which is barely a scratch on the surface.

You seem upset that I called you out... ? 🤣 Heaven forbid I write more than a short one liner to show my intellectual superiority to others, and instead show actual thoughtful evidence and consideration to a topic.

Tthis is why misinformation spreads. People are so stinking lazy and refuse to look past their own biases and do actual research and fact checking before posting shit as if it's a fact.


upL8N8 t1_jbh4quh wrote

It's a bit of a silly question isn't it?

Yes or no.


Trying to sum up a complex situation with a single yes or no question isn't doing anyone favors. I never stated EVs weren't a better solution than doing literally nothing. I went into the details and grey areas that no one likes to think or talk about. I know... thinking hard... details hard. Me drive car fast. Me save / me don't care about environment.

When you delve into the details about where we need to go, and where we're going with the goal of reducing emissions, we're taking pretty much the worst and slowest direction we could possibly consider. And who are the main beneficiaries? Humanity, the planet, or a few corporations; including the oil and mining industries, and primarily one specific car company who's leading the way towards a subpar solution and being rewarded handsomely for it?

This is what happens when the corrupt government picks technological and corporate winners, rather than simply taxing that which is bad and letting the market resolve the issue. If long range BEVs are the best solution, the market will push for it. If PHEVs / HEVs are the best solution, the market will push for it. If bikes, working from home, and 4 day work weeks are the best solution, then the market will push for it.

But then what do you expect from government representatives whose campaigns are financed by corporations, who are constantly lobbied by those corporations who treat them as if they're 'great friends', who are allowed to freely trade stock on insider information, and who may be promised lucrative positions once they're out of office.

As if it wasn't obvious, corporate campaign financing and lobbyists have far more money in their coffers than organizations fighting for the environment and the little guys.


FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbh5023 wrote

So yes, got it.


upL8N8 t1_jbh72sh wrote

>It's a bit of a silly question isn't it?

So yes... got it. At least you didn't back down from your silliness I guess.


Madmax1245 t1_jb9pley wrote

I take it that’s new car sales. I wonder what the figures are when you include used car sales as well


cyberentomology t1_jb9qzvr wrote

And US gasoline consumption is 10-15% off its 2019 peak, and covered to drop another 10% over the next 18-24 months. This is partially due to EVs, partially due to higher efficiency standards, and partially reduced driving due to more WFH.


AutoModerator t1_jb7j8o1 wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


fumblingIdiot2020 t1_jb9611c wrote

Bet gas prices don't go down lol


iceynyo t1_jb9xmj6 wrote

The know the end is coming, and they're gonna try wring out every last cent while they still can.


FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbaw49u wrote

I didn't expect this to get even 50 up votes yet here we are.

First off, yes, EV's are ABSOLUTELY better for the planet in the long term over traditional ICE cars. Full stop. End of discussion.

Second, battery tech is improving constantly, and "cleaner" materials are already being used to manufacture these large EV batteries.

The EV market is here whether you like it or not. They are cleaner and require less maintenance (how many oil changes does the average car get? A LOT) than ICE cars, saving you money there as well as not having to stop at a gas station. Infrastructure for EV's is improving every day all over the world.

Dread it, run from it, EV's arrive all the same. They are inevitable.

I say this as a "car guy." I've worked in the auto service industry almost my entire professional life. It's changing, and if your state isn't adapting to these changes, you're already 2 steps behind. You can not fight it. It's here.


[deleted] t1_jbc2lhh wrote



FarmhouseFan OP t1_jbc3p74 wrote

I understand that. Holy shit. However, because cars are a thing (just like guns, which are horrible for society) and people very much like and want cars, we have cars. Move on. I FULLY support the idea of creating a massive, green, and functional public transport system. Call me when they get going on it, until then:

Are EV's better for the environment than traditional ICE cars?

Yes or No.


nathansym t1_jb8ggxr wrote

I don't understand how this is in uplifting news? Cobalt mining is a blight on human history. Of course, one could say this is mainly driven by phones and other tech but I don't think, currently, a push in EV sales is uplifting.


ProtoplanetaryNebula t1_jb9iq11 wrote

The trend in EVs these days is to move to LFP, which is cobalt free.

Guess where cobalt will still be used in massive quantities? For refining petrol and diesel.


TheReverendCard t1_jb8ouh5 wrote

Most new EVs don't use cobalt. They use cobalt free LFP.


David_W_J t1_jba6man wrote

A lot of cobalt is used in the refining of petrol, diesel, etc.. as a catalyst to remove sulphur.


[deleted] t1_jb8uxxf wrote

Not really. Cobalt is still heavily used in anything with a chip really


TheReverendCard t1_jb8vkd1 wrote

It's also used in metals, tools, pigments, and soaps. You going to say we shouldn't have those too? Or just come to rag on EVs even though they're not going to be a major source soon.


nathansym t1_jb94m6s wrote

Sorry if I was misinformed. This is the wrong place for a fight.


[deleted] t1_jb91zvx wrote

Didn’t say a thing about EVs either way, just pointed out that cobalt is widely used and absolutely devastating in terms of how it is extracted. Please direct your anger to someone else thank you


Oerthling t1_jb9kn3j wrote

That stupid talking point again.

Bad working conditions around cobalt extraction need to be fixed, regardless of EV production.

Every kind of product uses resources. The materials used in ICE cars, buses or even trains don't fall from trees.

We should use less cars overall, move more people in more efficient vehicles, avoid needles business trips by moving meetings online. But the vehicles that eventually remain will be electric. ICE needs to die.

The "think of the cobalt" argument is probably from the same fossil think tank that gave us such classics as "wind turbines are killing all the birds" (a tiny fraction compared to the genocidal numbers cats murder each year).

I'm waiting for "solar panels steal sunshine" or whatever.


cyberentomology t1_jb9s3fm wrote

>solar panels steal sunshine

I mean, technically, yeah they do. That’s kind of the entire point, innit? Law of energy conservation and all that. Surface temperatures under a solar farm are significantly cooler (as one would expect, because, you know, shade and the whole turning solar energy into electrical energy thing.

And until we start launching our trash into the sun, solar isn’t actually renewable… there’s just more of it than we will ever use. And at the end of the day, all energy used on planet earth is just solar energy that has been stored somehow, at some point along the way.


Oerthling t1_jb9tl1y wrote

Ok. Sure. But is there a point to what you said?

We agree on the physics, which of course change nothing with regard to "solar panels steal sunshine" would be stupid propaganda by the fossil fuel industry.

Also, again, technically correct that the solar fusion by the sun is not renewable on cosmic multi-billion to trillion year time scales, but that has NOTHING to do with the definition of renewable within human discussion time scales.

Oil is going to run out in decades or a century or whatever, if we kept using it like the recent past it's gone in n generations and n is likely a single digit.

Solar OTOH is not going to run out before we

A) go extinct anyway

B) figured out practical fusion

C) spread out over half the galaxy.

It's renewable within any relevant time scales.

More than we'll ever use is what renewable means.


cyberentomology t1_jb9xpx4 wrote

We also thought that about oil at one point, woefully underestimating the human appetite for cheap energy, for which we’re just now paying the price.

Burning them is a monumental waste of perfectly good and useful organic compounds.

Juggling the changing demand for gasoline over the next decade or more is going to be an interesting challenge, because when you refine crude oil, you’re separating it out into several different fuel and feedstock compounds, and the amount of crude you need to refine depends on the demand for that particular fraction. So if you reduce gasoline output, you’re also reducing output of things like diesel, propane, kerosene, fuel oil, asphalt, etc. if the demand for any of those doesn’t drop along with that of gasoline (or demand for gasoline stays steady while it drops for other fractions), you end up with oversupply or undersupply (which is a major component of why diesel costs have soared relative to gasoline). If demand for diesel, jet fuel, and ship fuel oil stays steady while gasoline drops, the cost of gasoline is going to crater, changing the economics of BEVs. Now add in biofuels, which change the demand for petroleum fractions, and it’s gonna be a wild ride for a few decades.


Oerthling t1_jba4mz9 wrote

It's going to be a wild ride for sure. But outside of planes I don't think that fossil fuels in general have much future.

Ships can be moved by some combination of wind power (turbines, not sails for large container ships), batteries or "green" hydrogen (which makes such hydrogen effectively a kind of fluid battery).

Large, long range planes are the one exception where a solution isn't available or easily foreseeable for the near (decade or 2) future, because of particular volume and weight restrictions.

The price of gasoline won't matter much when gas stations close. And gas stations will close when a sizable percentage of the customer base switched to BEVs.

Also, depending on regional market a more or less relevant percentage of the gas price is not just the cost of gas production and distribution but also taxes. And those taxes can easily get raised further to discourage gasoline. Which is likely to happen.

Diesel will quickly die alongside gasoline, except for a niche of construction vehicles, etc..

Diesel/gas won't make a difference when it comes to getting replaced by BEVs for regular cars. In a decade it might well be easier to find a charger than a gas station.


cyberentomology t1_jba57v7 wrote

Absolutely, but the change in demand for the various fuels and fractions is not going to be simultaneous or linear, which is going to lead to some pretty wild fluctuations in supply (and consequently, prices). It will eventually find the right equilibrium, but that’s gonna take a while.


nathansym t1_jb9qj59 wrote

These people would beg to differ that this is a "bad talking point:"


Oerthling t1_jb9rx2b wrote

Did you just try to support your point with a Joe Rogan video on TikTok?

I can't even watch that video because I block TikTok and really have 0 interest in listening to Joe Rogan.

Assuming this is about abusive working conditions - again - that's not about extracting a particular resource, but about abusive working conditions. This needs to get regulated and improved regardless of resource or what it is used for.

What about iron, copper, nickel, gold and platinum? Oh and let's not forget the goddamn oil that gets extracted, processed, transported and burned to drive ICE cars.


nathansym t1_jb9syre wrote

Spotify more your speed?

Don't listen to Joe Rogan, listen to Siddharth Kara.

I agree that all of those are bad. I would not post something about more of those minerals being mined or more ICE cars being sold in uplifting news.

I would post something about the mining's abusive working conditions that need to get regulated and improved regardless of resource or what it is used for.


Oerthling t1_jb9tspg wrote

EVs vs ICE is uplifting because it's an improvement. It doesn't have to be perfect, because nothing ever is anyway. It just needs to be better.


nathansym t1_jb9txze wrote

Fair enough. I see your point.


Oerthling t1_jb9uaf6 wrote


And I will agree that there is a lot to improve around resource extraction and use.

I just don't like batteries being singled out at a time when humanity needs to get out of burning dead dinosaur soup.


Oerthling t1_jb9txy2 wrote

I cancelled Spotify because they give tons of money to Joe Rogan.


Skuffinho t1_jb9ln1t wrote

The horrible lie about EVs being ecological must stop. Do people seriously not realize how much environmental damage manufacturing those batteries does? I find it absolutely pathetic how everyone's just willing to ignore facts that don't suit their narrative so here are some:

Manufacturing batteries for one car creates about 16 tonnes of CO2.
Running a petrol engine car for a year creates about 2-4 tonnes of CO2.
To make an EV actually more ecological you'd need to run it for about 200000 miles, now show me an EV with more than 200k miles on it.


iceynyo t1_jb9wvjz wrote

>Manufacturing batteries for one car creates about 16 tonnes of CO2.
>Running a petrol engine car for a year creates about 2-4 tonnes of CO2.
>To make an EV actually more ecological you'd need to run it for about 200000 miles

How did you manage that calculation? I found the average gas emissions to be 1t of CO2 per 2500mi. So 16t of CO2 should actually be 40,000mi.

And that's only because you're taking the worst case for a Model 3 battery when the best case is actually 4.5t. While the mean is apparently closer to 5t, even if we take the median of 10t it's still a lot less CO2 at 25000mi.

Don't forget about the CO2 cost to extract, process, and transport that fuel all the way to the pump too. Actually makes the gas numbers way worse.

Plus a gas car has a lot more components in the drivetrain so the rest of the vehicle production is a bit more CO2 intensive compared to an EV as well.

Also considering batteries can be (and are being) recycled, the need for mining new battery materials will start to slow down, and maybe eventually can stop entirely.

So even if you're being pretty generous to the gas car and somewhat unfair to the EV, the gas car will overtake the EV on CO2 after 5 years.


Skuffinho t1_jb9mzt6 wrote

u/TableSurface can't reply to your comment for some reason. So I'll do it like this:

Did you actually read the article? It had a battery pack replaced TWICE. That car alone caused more environmental damage than a fleet of Hellcats. That's kinda exactly what I was on about here.


TableSurface t1_jb9tl8s wrote

Yeah I deleted the comment after I realized the article was a terrible example. You got a really good point and more focus should be put on the battery within EVs. Even though the "car" can last far beyond 200k miles, the battery must last at least as long in order to become more ecological compared to combustion engines. Battery manufacturing obviously needs to be improved.