i’ve provided mistral with sources and asked it to summarize them, then do averages on those summarisations. i’ve not just asked it to pull data from wherever (except the scrapping thing). i too think ai’s are full of shit, but i can go back and check because i provided the data.
the assumptions made in your text give a gCO2/kWh figure of about half the IEA’s, where’s that from? also, the emissions numbers of your fossil fuels engines are way off. assuming a fuel consumption of 10l/100km, the number for a petrol car would be 230g CO2/km rather than 150. also you’re mixing your units a lot.
Yeah, like I say, AI is shit. Quoting it as an authoritative source is crazy, and AI is surprisingly bad at arithmetic.
The graphic is screwy. It doesn’t pass plausibility test. Somehow the carbon cost of generating green electricity is far higher than the carbon cost of extracting oil and refining it. Someone’s adding in a whole bunch of CO2 for manufacturing and installing some wind turbines but not for oil extraction machinery and oil refineries. Just the sheer quantity of steel alone isn’t even comparable.
So no, you can chatgpt your argument as much as you like but you can’t convince me that the cheapest greenest wind overnight electricity I power my EV with somehow took more CO2 by quite a margin than the oil extraction, oil tankers and oil refining that my neighbour’s diesel car does. That’s so backwards and obviously incorrect and I don’t know why you persist with entertaining the idea.
I only objected to the graphic because it makes obviously screwy claims about power generation, somehow concluding that electricity is more polluting than double that of oil extraction, refinery and transportation, which is clearly false unless you’re in America or somewhere else that aggressively refuses to invest in wind and solar, despite onland wind being the cheapest form of electricity. The rest of the thread is you pointlessly trying to defend the absurd conclusion of the misleading graphic that it doesn’t matter whether you buy a polluting car or not. It does.
My advice for everyone: Next car, buy electric for the planet’s sake and the sheer joy of driving that brings (turn off spongy acceleration gasoline emulation mode), and buy second hand for your wallet and the planet’s sake.
Don’t believe the FUD around EVs; stop repeating the lies that the petrochemical industry is pushing so hard.
i’ve provided mistral with sources and asked it to summarize them, then do averages on those summarisations. i’ve not just asked it to pull data from wherever (except the scrapping thing). i too think ai’s are full of shit, but i can go back and check because i provided the data.
the assumptions made in your text give a gCO2/kWh figure of about half the IEA’s, where’s that from? also, the emissions numbers of your fossil fuels engines are way off. assuming a fuel consumption of 10l/100km, the number for a petrol car would be 230g CO2/km rather than 150. also you’re mixing your units a lot.
Yeah, like I say, AI is shit. Quoting it as an authoritative source is crazy, and AI is surprisingly bad at arithmetic.
The graphic is screwy. It doesn’t pass plausibility test. Somehow the carbon cost of generating green electricity is far higher than the carbon cost of extracting oil and refining it. Someone’s adding in a whole bunch of CO2 for manufacturing and installing some wind turbines but not for oil extraction machinery and oil refineries. Just the sheer quantity of steel alone isn’t even comparable.
So no, you can chatgpt your argument as much as you like but you can’t convince me that the cheapest greenest wind overnight electricity I power my EV with somehow took more CO2 by quite a margin than the oil extraction, oil tankers and oil refining that my neighbour’s diesel car does. That’s so backwards and obviously incorrect and I don’t know why you persist with entertaining the idea.
that’s not what my argument was at all, and not what the graph showed. anyway this gave me enough anxiety that i’m done
I only objected to the graphic because it makes obviously screwy claims about power generation, somehow concluding that electricity is more polluting than double that of oil extraction, refinery and transportation, which is clearly false unless you’re in America or somewhere else that aggressively refuses to invest in wind and solar, despite onland wind being the cheapest form of electricity. The rest of the thread is you pointlessly trying to defend the absurd conclusion of the misleading graphic that it doesn’t matter whether you buy a polluting car or not. It does.
My advice for everyone: Next car, buy electric for the planet’s sake and the sheer joy of driving that brings (turn off spongy acceleration gasoline emulation mode), and buy second hand for your wallet and the planet’s sake.
Don’t believe the FUD around EVs; stop repeating the lies that the petrochemical industry is pushing so hard.