Attached: 1 image
The Hyperloop was never meant to be built. Elon Musk admitted it was all about fueling opposition to California’s high-speed rail project so it would get canceled.
He never planned to improve transportation; he just wants to keep people trapped in cars.
https://newrepublic.com/article/174089/big-tech-watching-drive
#tech #transport #elonmusk #transportation #hyperloop #trains
Unfortunately, I think you’re right. I think they’ll be needed much longer even and I do think the future of transport contains a few cars for i.e. places too far away to sensibly connect with rail. That’ll hopefully only amount to a rather negligible fraction of transport.
subsidies don’t take away from those other efforts.
I don’t think that’s true. EV subsidies just reek of greenwashing. “Oh look how progressive we are, we’re spending billions to support EVs!” while showing next to no actual support for sensible alternatives.
EV sales make their cronies’ pockets grow larger, cycle paths don’t.
As for emissions, a car has a lower carbon footprint in the US after 1 to 5 years conservatively
Lower than what?
after that is 61% less carbon dioxide per mile with average US energy mix.
That’d be nice but it fully ignores the cost of the vehicle itself.
It also ignores the cost of the vehicle itself (only a note without concrete numbers at the bottom)
“light duty vehicles” does not sound representative of the average US car which (to my knowledge) is usually large&heavy in order to circumvent regulations (SUVs, pick-ups, …)
Smells a bit like a lie tbh.
1. is especially problematic because it massively skews percentages. If you leave out the cost of producing just the vehicle (even without battery), you make BEVs look much better because you only consider the one factor on which BEVs are actually better while ignoring the significant factors in car emissions that BEVs don’t improve on or even worsen.
According to my source, the production of the battery and the base vehicle combined produce about as many emissions as the electricity generation the entire lifetime of a BEV.
By omitting that, you ignore about half of the BEVs lifetime emissions but only 10-20% of an ICE’s. Do you see how that’s not really a valid way of measuring the BEV advantage when absolute terms matter?
You can read it without knowing German: “Benzin” means “petrol”, brown/orange are fuel emissions, green is vehicle production, gray is battery production and greenish-yellow is electricity production (in Germany, mind you). Y-axis is emissions per kilometre.
(The graph to the right is the same but a projection for 2030 when some amount of batteries are (supposedly) going to be produced in the EU under stricter emissions standards and better electricity mix (seems veery optimistic though IMHO).)
I think you misunderstood my information. The carbon cost of the EV (especially the battery) compared to a gasoline vehicle is overcome within 1 to 5 years. That’s when it breaks even. After that, an EV emits 61% less than a gasoline vehicle on average US grid power.
Light duty vehicles are anything that aren’t commercial trucks. It includes SUVs and huge personal trucks if I’m not mistaken.
Unfortunately, I think you’re right. I think they’ll be needed much longer even and I do think the future of transport contains a few cars for i.e. places too far away to sensibly connect with rail. That’ll hopefully only amount to a rather negligible fraction of transport.
I don’t think that’s true. EV subsidies just reek of greenwashing. “Oh look how progressive we are, we’re spending billions to support EVs!” while showing next to no actual support for sensible alternatives.
EV sales make their cronies’ pockets grow larger, cycle paths don’t.
Lower than what?
That’d be nice but it fully ignores the cost of the vehicle itself.
I have two issues with that data:
Smells a bit like a lie tbh.
1. is especially problematic because it massively skews percentages. If you leave out the cost of producing just the vehicle (even without battery), you make BEVs look much better because you only consider the one factor on which BEVs are actually better while ignoring the significant factors in car emissions that BEVs don’t improve on or even worsen.
According to my source, the production of the battery and the base vehicle combined produce about as many emissions as the electricity generation the entire lifetime of a BEV.
By omitting that, you ignore about half of the BEVs lifetime emissions but only 10-20% of an ICE’s. Do you see how that’s not really a valid way of measuring the BEV advantage when absolute terms matter?
Take a look at the left graph on page 3: https://www.bmuv.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Verkehr/emob_klimabilanz_bf.pdf
You can read it without knowing German: “Benzin” means “petrol”, brown/orange are fuel emissions, green is vehicle production, gray is battery production and greenish-yellow is electricity production (in Germany, mind you). Y-axis is emissions per kilometre.
(The graph to the right is the same but a projection for 2030 when some amount of batteries are (supposedly) going to be produced in the EU under stricter emissions standards and better electricity mix (seems veery optimistic though IMHO).)
I think you misunderstood my information. The carbon cost of the EV (especially the battery) compared to a gasoline vehicle is overcome within 1 to 5 years. That’s when it breaks even. After that, an EV emits 61% less than a gasoline vehicle on average US grid power.
Light duty vehicles are anything that aren’t commercial trucks. It includes SUVs and huge personal trucks if I’m not mistaken.