Right, so just ICE vs (it feels weird but I’m going to type it) a conventional hybrid. I’d probably compare cost against fuel savings and that would be my first metric.
I’m trying to reduce my carbon footprint so I’d think about that, YMMV. I don’t know how best to do a valuation on that.
Sounds like if you want it sooner than later you may not have many options.
This question is not hypothetical. It is real, and we have debated this at work more than once.
I have an SUV that gets 20 MPG and I live 5 miles from work. So my 10 mile round trip uses 0.5gallons of gas.
A coworker has a Prius that gets 45MPG and he lives 45miles from work. His daily round trip uses 2 gallons of gas.
Which of us has the bigger carbon footprint from vehicles, the SUV driver or the Prius driver?
My perspective is that by choosing to live far from work, the Prius driver overwhelmes any carbon savings from his high MPG car and is worse for the environment than an SUV driver. This opinion is not popular for the people who decided to live far from work in order to afford bigger houses.
No, it is true that living closer to what you do, work or play, has a lower carbon footprint. There is a manufacturing carbon footprint difference in the car choices, as well as new house/old house differences in construction and ongoing utilities/upkeep. If carbon footprint is your only concern, you’d be a childless locavore vegetarian who never travels and only uses the internet when the sun shines on their solar panel.
I’m sure the guy with the longer commute has the larger carbon footprint in this case. Also, remote working is great for reducing your carbon footprint.
So they use more gas and have a larger home. Do they have solar panels and a 20 SEER heat pump? If not, then they may also use more carbon to heat and cool their house compared to you.
Also, at least right now, cars are hard to buy. If you buy a hybrid or EV or whatever, someone else can’t buy it. So you should buy the gas guzzler and let someone who drives a lot take the Prius or whatever.
The Economist ran an interesting article on this a decade or two ago. Buying local food is not necessarily better for the environment. It can be, but it often isn’t.
If you’re driving an extra 8 miles each way to the farmer’s market in addition to your regular run to the grocery store where you also pick up beer and toilet paper and deodorant, and then the farmer is hauling a small quantity of produce in his gas-guzzling truck 30 miles each way to get his stuff to the farmer’s market… that’s a lot of gas divided out over not very much produce.
Contrast that with some produce from a commercial farm in Central America that was loaded onto a container ship and then hauled via tractor trailer from the port to the local supermarket that you were going to drive to anyway. Yeah the food traveled massively farther, but when you divide out the minuscule proportion of fuel that is specifically attributable to that one pint of strawberries… it very easily could end up being less due to economies of scale.
There’s a lot of variables and sometimes eating local really is greener. But it’s not something that should be automatically assumed to be true.
No.
Do you, Mr. EV buyer?
No, but on the list. I’m hoping to do a new roof this fall, and then solar. Our furnace is getting old, and will be replaced by a heat pump. Also need to have the windows rebuilt. But, you know, there are other factors influencing priorities, and all of these things are expensive, so. Oh, the hot water heater is past its life expectancy, and I’m hoping to replace it with a heat pump model.
About 50% of my electricity is generated by wind, 15% or so is nuclear, 35% is coal or nat gas. So relative to an ICE car, my EV will generate less carbon, even without solar.
So I’m not the poster child for going green, but trying to at least have a good trend of using less energy over time.
Fixed, for accuracy.
Also, one person’s carbon footprint is insignificant, except in petty arguments. (Cue South Park’s Pious car owners from 17 years ago.) Whole fricken’ countries need to work on this, especially those that make the most pollution. EVs help shift the pollution to ground chemicals instead of smog. Yay, I guess.
youtube of a guy who converts beetles to electric:
Overall, yes. I do feel some obligation to make lower carbon choices as a person who can more afford them than the average person. The $7500 federal rebate did make me pull the trigger on the car though. No solar panels yet as that is a significant outlay with a long slow payback in my locale, somewhat like kids’ college costs!
Rimac is back. 0-60 in 1.7s, 0-100 in 3.2s. It’s five seconds quicker to 200mph than a Veyron. It won’t come cheap, but cool nonetheless.
Chevy has unveiled specs on the Silverado EV. A 450 mile range, and 350kW charging. The Lightning does 320 or 350 miles, and charges at 155kW. So, shots fired.
I assume a lot more battery in it.
200kwh, vs 131kwh for the Ford. Makes sense, neither is getting much range from aero.
Holy lithium batman that is a big battery!
The Hummer EV has something like a 210kwh pack. The battery weighs almost 3,000lb.
What does that translate to in terms of charging time?
Can you imagine the size of the pile of coal that has to get burned to make enough electricity to charge that thing?