re: Amazon to roll out electric vans to fight climate change

quote:

---

You're leaving out hydro, bio, geothermal..

---

None of those will ever make a dent in overall energy production numbers, except for *maybe* bio. In fact hydro is declining as aging damns are torn down instead of repaired to return rivers to their natural course (which as a white water kayaker I'm all for).

quote:

---

Anyway, 100% renewable will not happen for centuries, most likely. The point, though, is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, if not for environmental reasons then for long-term economic and security concerns.

---

And I'm right there with you on this. I was just pointing out to others that renewables can't be counted on as the base energy generation for the grid.

Which is why I'm constantly beating the LFTR drum. Clean, efficient, safe, and able to be the primary power generation for the grid. Then add in renewables to supplement.

quote:

---

Show me where in the article that it has actual carbon impact figures.

---

The article was fluff.

quote:

---

The article says the goal is: "being carbon neutral on 50% of all Amazon shipments by 2030." Notice the word SHIPMENTS. Did YOU read the article smart arse?

---

I did, and I also read several other articles about "Shipment Zero". The focus is on shipments because that is the easiest "low hanging fruit" to attack. It is also the easiest to quantify.

quote:

---

He is not taking vehicle production into account. Don't accuse me of not reading something when you clearly haven't. I am happy to discuss the issue without being a dick.

---

You pointed out yourself that this fluff piece contains no actual figures, yet you are so sure that vehicle production is not taken into account? Production emissions are a HUGE topic. Surely there are people doing the math, and surely those people would raise a stink about it if production emissions were being ignored. Can you link some articles?

quote:

---

New EV are certainly more efficient and produce less carbon over useful life of the vehicle, HOWEVER the production of an automobile emits more carbon than the useful life of a gas car up to like 200k miles.

---

For being a stickler about "actual" figures, strange that you're tossing out figures such as "like 200k miles". The real figure is much closer to 50k miles, and that's assuming a high estimate of 75% more emissions for EVs during production (it's typically 75% more on the high end), as well as a high mix of electricity produced from fossil fuels. Both of these areas are continually improving, and the total lifecycle emissions crossover point is steadily getting shorter and shorter.

quote:

---

I don't know the figures for EVs, but I do know they produce more carbon in production

---

Depending on battery size, it's anywhere from 15% to 75% more emissions during production over a typical ICE vehicle.

quote:

---

Lithium mines are HORRIBLE for the environment.

---

Got any figures?

quote:

---

The most carbon efficient method over the useful life would be to refurbish old vans instead of producing new ones.

---

Again, got any figures? The numbers do not work out in favor of your argument.

quote:

---

Lithium mines are HORRIBLE for the environment.

---

That is an outdated argument as I have discussed several times in the thread.


The arguments against EVs are almost always, as they have been in this thread, a collection of peripheral arguments used in a failed attempt to grasp at enough straws to even build a strawman argument.

quote:

---

Using a private aircraft for transportation seems like a massive waste.

If you're going to be consistent about reducing fossil fuels, walk the walk.

---

Isn't that precisely what he is doing by heavily investing in electric vehicles for delivery?

am I missing something?

quote:

---

But that's not what he's doing using private aircraft a dozen times a month. You know, the whole point of dissent.

---

So if I may... I'm going to try and understand your logic. Please tell me what I'm missing.

Are you saying:
"Jeff Bezos is inadvertently saying, 'Do as I say and not as I do,' because while he may be investing in electric vehicles (and not telling anyone else to do the same) he also flies on private jets."

If so, I'm not sure I understand your logic.

The man said more needs to be done. And he's putting his money where his mouth is by investing in electric vehicles. Could he do more? Yeah. Did he say he was carbon neutral and that everyone else must be as well? If so, I didn't see it.

I just don't see where 'do as I say and not as I do' has even a remote distinction with the topic at hand.

quote:

---

Has anyone ever thought about the damage those batteries do to the environment? Cobalt is highly toxic.

---

In the grand scheme of toxic materials used in the building of cars, not just EVs, cobalt isn't really that bad. It certainly is toxic at high enough levels when it gets into the body in the right way. An example of that is cobalt toxicity from joint replacement medical devices.

That said the mining of cobalt is a humanitarian and ecological issue in its primary source country. It is causing issues in the DRC.

This and probably more so the significant increase in the cost of Co has lead to Tesla reducing its use by 60% over the past few years. Panasonic is getting close to releasing Co free batteries for EVs.

The vast majority of the "EV bad" arguments seem to come from outdated information. They certainly aren't perfect but using 10-year-old talking points is usually some combination of "I don't care about this enough to follow it" and "I don't want to like EVs so this is a convenient way to support that opinion".

quote:

---

A lot of the opposition to EV's seems to come from the O&G "muh jobs" crowd, but doesn't it have to be a net positive to the economy to use energy more efficiently?

---

I work for a tech company, salesforce. I’m part of that crowd.

Aside from vehicles and homes via renewables. What is the realistic plan if we remove hydrocarbons to create and produce ALL of the materials made from hydrocarbons.
For example parts of your iPhone that you’re using...

The reality is that we are living in a time where you have powerful politicians literally calling for the complete removal of oil/gas production. (Also calling out cow farts..)

In their plans they provide ZERO fricking ZERO answer to the thousands of materials made because of hydrocarbons.

A private business makes a concerted effort to reduce its carbon footprint over a few decades by investing in electric vehicles, and half the country gets their panties in a wad - calling the action stupid and hypocritical - because some far-left politicians are advocating for a total reduction in hydrocarbons.



I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. What does one have to do with the other?

quote:

---

What is the realistic plan if we remove hydrocarbons to create and produce ALL of the materials made from hydrocarbons.
For example parts of your iPhone that you’re using...

---

Obtuse1 said it better than I could, but this has been addressed several times in this thread already.

quote:

---

The reality is that we are living in a time where you have powerful politicians literally calling for the complete removal of oil/gas production. (Also calling out cow farts..)

In their plans they provide ZERO fricking ZERO answer to the thousands of materials made because of hydrocarbons.

---

I don't know who these people are. All I know is we would be wise to produce these useful materials you mentioned rather than burn the vast majority of o&g.