There needs to be a radical redesign in how many countries, especially western ones, build the places we live and work. We need suburbs do be retrofitted with mixed use development and transit. It's going to be incredibly costly...but it's do or die.
Clickbait title. The problem has nothing to do with EVs themselves.
The problem the article states is that converting that many vehicles takes time and we need to reduce GHG output while still transitioning, along with converting the GHG emitting power grids that are feeding the EVs we are getting.
In the long term, switching to EVs would allow us to use them the same or more than we currently do without having any GHG issues.
I mean really all EVs help us shift the responsibility of emissions from the consumer to governments and power companies. To reduce green house gases EVs and at the same time regulations against coal power plants and other green house gas emitting power plants. While incentivising nuclear, wind, solar, ect.
Except for one pesky problem: there is only enough lithium and cobalt to power a fraction of the world's 1.5 billion motor vehicles electrically. And that's just passenger vehicles. Not construction equipment, not agriculture, not the thousand other vehicular and non-vehicular demands for li-ion batteries.
It's mathematically impossible with current battery tech for everyone to be driving EV's. Battery efficiency would need to improve by orders of magnitude for this to work.
We've got about a dozen battery technologies in late stage development right now, that problem is solved, it just needs funding. No point funding it when lithium is still available at reasonable prices.
I'll believe it when I see it. Got any links?
CATL (massive Chinese battery manufacturer) has sodium-ion batteries coming to EVs later this year or next year.
They don't quite match lithium yet, but they're close enough to be commercially viable already.
Regardless of the fuel, single-passenger vehicles are an incredibly inefficient mode of transportation. There's no reason for many cities and city centers to be as car-centric as they are, and any energy savings that could be achieved with EVs in these cities would only be multiplied if wide roads were replaced with walkable paths and effective public transport.
My biggest problem (as an engineer) is that the hype around EVs ignores the possibility that there are better solutions. It's easy to get invested in a cool idea but you can't fixate on it and forget about the problem that you set out to solve in the first place.
Only 28% of GHG emissions are from transportation, and only half of that is light vehicles. We aren't going to stop global warming just by getting rid of cars
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
We aren’t going to stop global warming just by getting rid of cars
nobody is saying this, though. i don't know whose point you're arguing against here, but it's not one made by the article or anyone in this thread.
The title was against the claim getting EVs will solve climate change, and suggested reducing car use instead. Since it didn't refute the overarching claim that climate change can be stopped by getting rid of cars, I thought it was still advocating that position, just a more extreme version. Sorry for the misunderstanding
All topics urbanism and city related, from urban planning to public transit to municipal interest stuff. Both automobile and FuckCars inclusive.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.