As the trend of using electric cars becomes more and more widespread, the question arises as to what role they have in mitigating global warming
Studies show that when the electricity is produced from renewable sources, the environmental footprint of an electric car is lower than that of a car powered by mineral fuel and the level of pollutant emissions throughout the entire process (from production to recycling) is much lower. But is this enough to stop the infection?
Despite the conclusions of the studies, there is no clear reference to the level of environmental damage from the mining and extraction of the minerals needed to produce the batteries used in electric cars.
Despite the environmental advantage, the increase in the production and sale of electric cars leaves room for concernenvironment, since according to a report by the Institute for Transportation Development (ITDP) at the University of California at Davis.
Electric cars alone will not "save us". According to the authors of the report: "The way not to exceed the level of warming by 1.5 degrees is to combine electrification (car) and increase urban density." The researchers add that as part of the effort to mitigate warming, it is necessary to make cities friendly to cyclists and pedestrians. For this it is necessary to crowd the cities.
In order to stop the warming, it is necessary to drive less electric cars as well, since their production and operation also require resources, materials that you have produced and the use of which causes damage to the natural environment. However, the website of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculated that in terms of emissions, in total the electric cars pollute less throughout their life cycle compared to internal combustion engine cars. This figure only includes the emission of greenhouse gases and other vulnerabilities in the environment which I will expand on later.
An advantage for pedestrians and cyclists
In order to reduce the use of cars (also electric), it is necessary to develop dense cities that allow easy access to workplaces, educational institutions and all community services independent of cars, cities that give an advantage to pedestrians and cyclists will be better for the environment and at the same time also better for the health of the population . The studies show that the combination of electrification and dense development contribute to all parties.
The world must wean itself off mineral fuel that destroys the climate, so even though an electric car has a low carbon footprint, there are experts who claim that it is also important to take into account the emissions in the production process and the fact that charging the batteries does not always come from green electricity.
The AllAfrica news site reports that in many cities taxis are the main form of public transportation, and when you add to that African cities where motorcycles are "taxis", the result is air pollution that harms health.
From this it is clear that the transition to electrification is a welcome initiative, yet several issues need to be clarified before the initiative will bear fruit. For example, the need to produce electricity from renewable sources in areas where access to electricity is not common anyway.
Following the increase in the production of electric cars, the demand for minerals such as cobalt, manganese, lithium and more increases, a demand that causes entrepreneurs to search and mine in the depths of the sea, an activity that undoubtedly causes serious damage to the marine environment. Added to this is the fact that for the cobalt pillow in Africa, children are exploited under conditions of slavery, so there is no doubt that in order to reduce carbon emissions, more than "just" the electrification of the cars is needed.
Around the world there are leading cities in the effort to mitigate warming, cities where the use of energy from renewable sources and the use of clean production technologies has increased. Reducing emissions from industries and transportation reduces local pollution and thus improves air quality and the health of residents. At the same time, there is a trend of developing dense urban centers that encourage and enable less use of cars and more walking and cycling. These cities are also developing an efficient public transportation system powered by green electricity.
There is no doubt about the vital need to find an effective solution that will prevent the climate disaster, electric cars have an important role in the solution, but without a radical change in the production of the green batteries (that drive the cars) the serious damage to the environment (and children) will continue.
The giant corporations that control production have the means and knowledge to produce clean energy, and when the demand for batteries increases, it is time for a change that prioritizes human rights and the environment.
In November at COP26 world leaders reached an agreement on the climate issue, countries promised to cut emissions and report their progress at COP27 to be held in Cairo. The agreements also include a commitment to financial support for poor countries affected by warming and climate change, support that will allow poor countries to develop clean energy sources.
And I will add that the basis of the solution to the problems is the understanding that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there should be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
עAnd on the topic on the science website:
11 תגובות
Neither cars nor factories affect the earth. Harta Barta is nature and we and what we do nothing affects it it is huge what do you have? We dot …….. so
Why do you ask, because you read it on some climate denier message board? There is something called feedback.
Is the FDF the main cause of the increase in global warming? Could it be that global warming causes the amount of heat to rise following a decrease in water solubility as a result of warming caused by another reason?
And I will add that the basis of the solution to the problems is the understanding that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there should be control of the human population for the sake of the environment
This is the essence of the "green" concept. A desire to take over humanity, just like communism.
Left 2021
Electric cars almost do not improve the situation of the climate crisis as long as they are powered by electricity produced from fossil carbon energy (gas, oil, coal), which even with the best efforts will take many years to replace.
This transition to a hybrid vehicle powered by natural gas (instead of gasoline) will reduce the greenhouse gas generation of vehicles by 2/3 immediately.
Also, switching to electricity production in gas stations with secondary use of the exhaust heat will reduce the emissions of GHG by 30% compared to gas-powered stations.
The transition to these stations involves the establishment of additional production units at existing stations, so it is possible to reach the goal within a few years.
Together, even without a complete transition to renewable energy, the Western world can cut the dispersion of the FDF by 20%, and through economic pressure on China, reach 40%, very close to the 50% goal of the Glasgow report.
The problem is that we don't need a million electric cars instead of a million regular ones, but a million electric ones instead of ten million regular ones. When there will be autonomous driving, we will not need a private car and it will be possible to use the cars better. The car companies do not like such a future and try to postpone it as much as possible.
Of course it won't help
But it can help with morbidity
Will less pollution in the cities cause a real decrease in morbidity in the future?
Trams help unequivocally in reducing pollution for the following reasons:
1. Charging a car from the mains without any pollution during the trip at all
2. Instead of a million polluting cars standing in traffic jams, it is possible to have a million electric cars that do not pollute at all, neither while driving nor in traffic jams.
3. The electricity producers, who are very few, can be monitored and their pollution stopped quite easily, it's not a million cars driving and polluting, these are a single digit number of electricity producers that can be fitted with filters and almost completely eliminate their pollution.
4. I have been traveling on trams for almost 9 years
And I'm doing great and I think that in order to push them more cars we should impose a high pollution tax and not give up.
1. Electric cars are much less polluting than cars that use fossil fuels even if we look at the entire production process.
2. For secondary dock batteries - energy storage when a battery drops to at least 80% of the original capacity, it is no longer good enough for vehicles, but it is enough for energy storage and is worth about $3000 for storage purposes.
3. Batteries have a tertiary market for the recycling of battery materials. Already today, companies like Redwood Materials know how to use an average of 95% of the raw materials for reuse.
4. Most new batteries for electric vehicles do not contain cobalt at all. The LFP lithium iron phosphate batteries are the most common batteries for mass production electric vehicles (not performance vehicles).
5. The development of the quality of the batteries causes the transformation of gardening and energy storage tools to be based on batteries and in the future also vessels and pilots. When generating electricity at the power station, even when it is made from fossil fuels, it is made in a significantly more efficient manner than vehicle engines with internal combustion.
6. The main revolution will come when the batteries have an energy density of 400 watts per kg (today a maximum of about 280 watts per kg) or more and then the planes, the most polluting means of transportation, will be able to be electric.
Probably the simple truth is that everything "green" has a price.
Solar takes up land from nature.
Wind turbines harm birds.
And the sentence is not clear:
"When the electricity is produced from renewable sources, the environmental footprint of an electric car is lower than that of a car powered by gasoline"
Obviously, electricity doesn't help a non-electric vehicle
It is clear that electricity for an electric vehicle that is produced with fuel or coal is polluting
Electric cars won't help either? It seems that we are marching towards the obvious conclusion: the only solution to the environmental crises is fewer people, much, much less.
Population thinning can be done by reducing fertility, you don't have to imagine cruel and dramatic solutions