Everyone knows that electric vehicles are supposed to be better for the planet than gas cars. That’s the driving reason behind a global effort to transition toward batteries.

But what about the harms caused by mining for battery minerals? And coal-fired power plants for the electricity to charge the cars? And battery waste? Is it really true that EVs are better?

The answer is yes. But Americans are growing less convinced.

The net benefits of EVs have been frequently fact-checked, including by NPR. "No technology is perfect, but the electric vehicles are going to offer a significant benefit as compared to the internal combustion engine vehicles," Jessika Trancik, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told NPR this spring.

It’s important to ask these questions about EVs’ hidden costs, Trancik says. But they have been answered “exhaustively” — her word — and a widerange of organizations have confirmed that EVs still beat gas.

1 point

Propaganda works.

There should be penalties for spreading such lies.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

IMO, I still think there’s not enough infrastructure to support charging EVs. Don’t get me wrong I’ve seen some. Just… Not a lot. Until charging is as prevalent as gas its just not worth it. Or if you have a house I guess.

In some areas I hear it’s good. But in my area there’s only 1 set of charging stations at a Wawa that I know of. And that Wawa is an hour drive away. Plus I’m at a rental complex that mows the lawns regularly and having a cable run from my house to the car is not allowed.

My current gas operated vehicle has about 160000 miles on it. I’m hopeful that my vehicle will last a long time. And then when my vehicle dies, I’ll look at the infrastructure again and see if it’s beneficial for me to switch to an EV. I’m going to continue to wait until it’s beneficial for me to buy a new car.

We’ll see how it goes.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Well, gas stations don’t really want electric because it would cut into their main source of revenue so I think I may have spotted the bottleneck.

The only way charging stations will become prevalent is if municipalities start setting them up. Either that or grocery stores. Though Answers with Joe made an interesting case for Buccees adopting charging stations as a method of generating revenue through increased tourism at their locations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Gas stations actually make almost all of their money on things other than gas that people buy while they are at the gas station. It’s true that people wouldn’t come to existing gas stations nearly as much if they weren’t buying gas but they could make as much or more from users charging.

The real problem from their perspective is how infrequently users may need such especially if they charge at home and the cost of charging infra which is always in addition to gas not instead of

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

The only valid criticisms of EV’s are:

  1. They’re harder to extinguish than a gas car if they end up catching on fire.

  2. They don’t really solve any of the major issues with car based infrastructure.

  3. Tesla is a shit show because of that damn muskrat which pushes a lot of people away from EV’s in general.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

They don’t steal a lot of data too? Or this privacy nightmare affected gas car too?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s an issue in newer cars in general.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They are heavier and accelerate faster than an equivalent ICE vehicle on the same frame, and so result in more pedestrian fatalities.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They are heavier and accelerate faster than an equivalent ICE vehicle on the same frame, and so result in more pedestrian fatalities.

That’s not why.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I lump that in with part of the major problems of car based infrastructure but that’s still fair to point out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

All else being equal

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

They’re harder to extinguish than a gas car if they end up catching on fire.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62188058/tesla-semi-crash-fire-required-50000-gallons-of-water-and-fire-fighting-aircraft/

Yeah that is gonna be a bigger problem than most people imagined.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

My firefighter neighbour told me that the procedure now is just to let them burn, like they do with gasoline fires. They make sure it doesn’t spread, but they won’t try to extinguish it because it’d take 10-12 hours and thousands of gallons. By just letting it burn they’re done in an hour with a few hundred gallons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

To be fair, no consumer vehicles have 900 kWh batteries haha.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Because the conservative machine, despite the love of Elon’s right-wing antics, never stop talking about how bad EVs are. Funny, the only time they act like they care about the environment is when they talk about how bad the EV batteries are to manufacture. While they roll coal and drive gas-guzzling mall cruiser bro-dozers all over the place.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Give him a few years into a potential Trump victory, and he will make Tesla to manufacture petrol cars.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

zombie engineer voice “traiiiiiins”

permalink
report
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 10K

    Posts

  • 197K

    Comments