this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
107 points (96.5% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5243 readers
353 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

weight doesn't really matter. Trains weigh a FUCKLOAD but are the most efficient means of travel simply because they don't stop once they start rolling, and are shaped such that they're not affected much by wind resistance.

Cars go fast enough that air resistance is a much greater contributing factor to their efficiency than weight is. In general cars are the problem regardless of their efficiency, because they're always going to be the worst choice for moving anything: they're useful because of their convenience.

So, since we can't get rid of cars, the best choice is to make their impact on our carbon problem as lessened as possible, and the best way to do that is to stop burning things to make them move.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So, since we can’t get rid of cars, the best choice is to make their impact on our carbon problem as lessened as possible, and the best way to do that is to stop burning things to make them move.

No. The best way possible is to calculate the various effects of differentt fuel sources and make sure we choose the best one. ACEEE's calculations suggest that burning things (ie: Toyota Prius) remains the #2 best vehicle, only beaten by Prius Prime PHEV (partially plug-in electric + burning things).

Don't hate me, hate actual math and physics. https://www.aceee.org/greener-cars

Lighter weight, lower-polluting PHEVs can beat EVs (!!!) once we add up all the pollution events.


Therein lies your hubris. You think EVs are the best, but the math suggests otherwise. EVs can be pretty good, as long as you get a small battery pack (like Nissan Leaf) that minimizes the effects of dirty Li-ion mining, and avoid the dirtiest chemistries like NCA (Tesla has a score of 55 on ACEEE's green-list, meaning even a full ICE/Hybrid like 2024 Accord Hybrid's 62 rating is better than a Tesla).

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A PHEV still has a battery. We're going to be doing that mining anyway. And we're definitely going to be using every single battery we can make. So, what's the point of burning fuels if you can do it all with batteries, which should continue to get better over time? It doesn't matter if EV's are slightly less efficient than a handful of PHEVS if they're using clean energy to charge. Once the lithium and rare earth minerals are mined they're recyclable, and their value over time will actually make it important to do so.

And, yet again, burning fuels has to stop. We need to stop putting sequestered carbon in the air. And no, switching the globe to "renewable carbon" via biomass isn't going to work.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

A PHEV still has a battery.

Yes. And a 13.6kW-hr battery (like in the Prius Prime) has 1/6th of the rare-earth metals found in the Tesla 80kW-hr batteries.

So, what’s the point of burning fuels if you can do it all with batteries

Because current battery technology is so dirty that it wipes out the gains you made from avoiding fossil fuels.

which should continue to get better over time?

When the Silicon-Batteries and/or Sodium Batteries appear two years from now, I'll re-evaluate. But today, PHEV is cleaner.

https://www.aceee.org/greener-cars

Proof is in the pudding. Prius Prime, after accounting for "lifetime" emissions (which include the incredibly dirty mining process behind mining 80kW-hr worth of batteries instead of 13.6kW-hr), is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than a large number of EVs. Even EVs with small battery packs like the 40kW-hr Nissan Leaf


The issue with say, larger Tesla-like vehicles is that their battery packs are too big, too heavy, too redundant, and cause too much pollution during manufacturing. A Prius Prime has ~70% electrification in practice / 30% ICE, and the 30% ICE part is at over 50mpg. Once all the math / weight / costs / environmental effects are added up, the 800+lbs of extra Li-ion batteries from Tesla (and even smaller say ~500lb battery packs from Nissan Leaf) will easily out-pollute the miniscule amount of gasoline the Prius prime uses.

We need to re-evaluate EVs as different battery packs come out. LFP is much less pollution, but its also much less kw-hr and thus heavier per energy.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Their formula for calculating greenness drastically underestimates the impact of carbon emissions. That's the only reason there's a PHEV at the top of the list.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

With all due respect, I think I'll take ACEEE's word over yours with regards to the environmental costs of NOx, CO2, PM, and other pollutants.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What do you know of the funding of ACEEE?

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

https://www.aceee.org/aceee-ally-program

Not a single car company, if that's what you're going for. State of California Energy Commission is one of the bigger contributors.