The dirty truth about Biden's electric future

[Vambram]

The dirty truth about Biden's electric future

Biden's Environmental Protection Agency goal is to force automakers, and the American public, to adopt electric cars.

www.foxnews.com

But the production of EV batteries requires a massive amount of electricity, usually produced by generators that burn fossil fuels. The manufacturing of EVs produces at least 60 percent more carbon emissions than that of gas-powered cars. EVs start their lives with carbon debt.

The extra weight of heavy batteries also quickly wears down an EV’s tires as it drives, which means they aren’t "emissions free." In fact, one study found that electric cars emitted about a quarter more particulate matter than hybrid vehicles thanks to the added weight.
Administration activists aren’t just wrong about the environmental benefits of EVs. They’re also wrong about their performance. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg claimed that "we see the superiority of EVs in terms of performance, not just in terms of climate."

But we all heard about EVs malfunctioning this winter. Freezing temperatures — and hot temperatures — drain batteries and reduce driving range, leaving stranded drivers helpless. Even in normal weather, EVs have been plagued with glitches. A Consumer Reports survey even found that new EVs have 79 percent more problems than internal-combustion cars.

These performance problems create safety issues as well. In January, the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility at my alma mater, the University of Nebraska, conducted EV crash tests. They found that EVs have 20 to 50 percent more impact when crashing into a roadside barrier. The extra weight on an EV means that when accidents occur, the damage is greater than a comparable gas car.

 

[Bradskii]

The dirty truth about Biden's electric future

Biden's Environmental Protection Agency goal is to force automakers, and the American public, to adopt electric cars.

www.foxnews.com

But the production of EV batteries requires a massive amount of electricity, usually produced by generators that burn fossil fuels. The manufacturing of EVs produces at least 60 percent more carbon emissions than that of gas-powered cars. EVs start their lives with carbon debt.

The extra weight of heavy batteries also quickly wears down an EV’s tires as it drives, which means they aren’t "emissions free." In fact, one study found that electric cars emitted about a quarter more particulate matter than hybrid vehicles thanks to the added weight.
Administration activists aren’t just wrong about the environmental benefits of EVs. They’re also wrong about their performance. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg claimed that "we see the superiority of EVs in terms of performance, not just in terms of climate."

But we all heard about EVs malfunctioning this winter. Freezing temperatures — and hot temperatures — drain batteries and reduce driving range, leaving stranded drivers helpless. Even in normal weather, EVs have been plagued with glitches. A Consumer Reports survey even found that new EVs have 79 percent more problems than internal-combustion cars.

These performance problems create safety issues as well. In January, the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility at my alma mater, the University of Nebraska, conducted EV crash tests. They found that EVs have 20 to 50 percent more impact when crashing into a roadside barrier. The extra weight on an EV means that when accidents occur, the damage is greater than a comparable gas car.

Thanks. We'll manage without you.

 

[Vambram]

Thanks. We'll manage without you.

??

 

[Bradskii]

??

If you want to argue against a future without renewables, then fine. There's no need for you to do anything. The rest of us will.

 

[Vambram]

If you want to argue against a future without renewables, then fine. There's no need for you to do anything. The rest of us will.

I'm not arguing against renewables. I agree that renewable sources of energy are important. These different sources of renewable energy should be used. But at the same time, it ought to be acknowledged that, currently, we do not have the technological means to efficiently use those sources to the point where they are more efficient than the petroleum based energy sources.
We also should acknowledge the problems with relying solely upon renewable sources of energy. It is no secret that wind, solar, and hydro energy all combined together cannot replace petroleum fueled energy. If and when that changes, then it will not bother me a bit if we no longer have to use gasoline, diesel, coal, or natural gas.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not arguing against renewables. I agree that renewable sources of energy are important. These different sources of renewable energy should be used. But at the same time, it ought to be acknowledged that, currently, we do not have the technological means to efficiently use those sources to the point where they are more efficient than the petroleum based energy sources.

Consider South Australia.

'Latest data shows solar and wind energy accounted for 80 per cent of the state’s electricity from December 1 to February 28, including the 10-day stint where the state used 100 per cent green energy.

Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis said on most days in SA there were now periods when renewables generated more than enough electricity to meet 100 per cent of the state’s consumption, with the excess exported to Victoria.' SA hits new record running on 100 per cent renewables - InDaily'.

And over 1/3 of all Australian power is via renewables: Clean Energy Report | Clean Energy Council

So I guess that we do actually have the 'technological means to efficiently use those sources to the point where they are more efficient than the petroleum based energy sources.'

All you need are people who make the decisions about these matters to get their act together. But gee, South Australia has all that sun. Well, somewhere like Kansas actually gets a lot more hours (it's being discussed in another thread). Topeka gets 4,890 hours per year and Adelaide gets 2,774.

About 50% of Kansas power is already produced by wind farms, so they're on the right track (U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis). But their largest power company - Evergy, is dragging the chain on solar because they lose customers. Get that sorted and Kansas will be able to match and even surpass S.A.

The technology is there. The willingness is not. And it doesn't help when you start threads saying that we are not ready. We plainly and obviously are.

In passing, here's an image of a proposed Chinese EV battery factory that's being built innthe UK. Cost of £1 billion. It's gigantic. And the roof is nothing but solar panels. Chinese EV battery maker in talks to invest £1bn in new UK gigafactory

It's not the case that we are heading for a renewable future. It's already here.

 

[RDKirk]

It's not willingness, it's money. It's always money. And cost is a matter of technology. Even in Texas, where we can choose 100 percent green electricity if we want, the difference in cost is clear at the consumer level.

If there was more profit involved, the difference would be clear at the producer level, too.

 

[JustOneWay]

The dirty truth about Biden's electric future

Biden's Environmental Protection Agency goal is to force automakers, and the American public, to adopt electric cars.

www.foxnews.com

But the production of EV batteries requires a massive amount of electricity, usually produced by generators that burn fossil fuels. The manufacturing of EVs produces at least 60 percent more carbon emissions than that of gas-powered cars. EVs start their lives with carbon debt.

I am pretty sure most who have followed this at all understands that it (probably) takes as much energy (and pollution) to build a EV vehicle in relation to what it may save in the life of a vehicle, but the real issue is pollution in the cities and towns spared for having more clean vehicles than the polluters with fossil-fuel burning ones. Eventually, the technology will advance, like it always does, and the future will see less pollution. Hopefully.

This is long term thinking....and a progression towards the future.

 

[rambot]

At this point, VERY VERY VERY few people are calling for an abandonment of petroleum power. And nobody with a semblance of control is doing it.
This argument always sounds like a huge strawman.

I wasn't able to read your article so I'm not sure how factual this Fox news piece was.

But the production of EV batteries requires a massive amount of electricity, usually produced by generators that burn fossil fuels. The manufacturing of EVs produces at least 60 percent more carbon emissions than that of gas-powered cars. EVs start their lives with carbon debt.

And with 1.5 years of driving that gap is closed
E.V.s Start With a Bigger Carbon Footprint. But That Doesn’t Last. (Published 2022)
If that ICEs use THAT much more, imagine how much more ICE creates while DRIVING (forget about the production of it's fuel for a minute)

The extra weight of heavy batteries also quickly wears down an EV’s tires as it drives, which means they aren’t "emissions free." In fact, one study found that electric cars emitted about a quarter more particulate matter than hybrid vehicles thanks to the added weight.

I think your critique of "emissions free" is a bit pedantic. The common number I've seen is 20% faster wear with EVs but special tired can be purchased that negate/limit that difference. I'd imagine how tires are used could make a difference as well but that's also pedantic, a bit....

Administration activists aren’t just wrong about the environmental benefits of EVs. They’re also wrong about their performance. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg claimed that "we see the superiority of EVs in terms of performance, not just in terms of climate."

Ok. Well, with such a quote mine as that, anything could be true. They can't travel as far but. I'll say my friend's Telsa with powerpack took off from the line faster than any ICE I've been in on a public road. Also, they are notorious for having FAR few repairs and maintenance costs than ICE.

But we all heard about EVs malfunctioning this winter. Freezing temperatures — and hot temperatures — drain batteries and reduce driving range, leaving stranded drivers helpless

Here's the thing to me: There are people who end up running out of gas on the side of the road all the time already. It's something people do. Kinda dumb. And NOBODY blames the internal combustion engine for those people running out of gas.
Why not blame the EV owner for not making sure they had sufficient charge? I have 3 friends with EVs. One couple has had theirs for 5 years. NEVER had an issue. And they've made trips from Edmonton to Victoria (1300 with a ferry ride) and they made it just fine.
It's called "plan ahead". It should be shocking to read that "planning" mitigates a LOT of problems.
Maintenance Costs Compared: EV vs ICE - CarGurus.
$330 less per year (35% less)
And approx 1/2 the cost to fuel.
IF those 79% of issues mentioned are not a part of the drive train, then that's just poor manufacturing. But SOOOOOO many details are left out from that quote, it's kinda hard to critique it or accept it.

These performance problems create safety issues as well. In January, the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility at my alma mater, the University of Nebraska, conducted EV crash tests. They found that EVs have 20 to 50 percent more impact when crashing into a roadside barrier. The extra weight on an EV means that when accidents occur, the damage is greater than a comparable gas car.

Are Electric Cars Safer Than ICE Cars? | Patterson Legal Group.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that electric car passengers involved in car accidents had a lower rate of injury than those in ICE or diesel-powered vehicles.

I am VERY VERY curious about how Consumer Reports break down their numbers (couldn't access the breakdown without buying). And while 79% is quite high, agian, I'm curious what that entails exactly. Also, given most of these automakers are brand brand new building these engines, I wouldn't be surprised more problems.

 

[Bradskii]

I am pretty sure most who have followed this at all understands that it (probably) takes as much energy (and pollution) to build a EV vehicle in relation to what it may save in the life of a vehicle, but the real issue is pollution in the cities and towns sparred from having more clean vehicles than the polluters with fossil-fuel burning ones. Eventually, the technology will advance, like it always does, and the future will see less pollution. Hopefully.

This is long term thinking....and a progression towards the future.

An interesting chart (GHGs are Greenhouse gases): Electric Vehicle Myths | US EPA

So for sure EV battery manufacturing does have an impact which isn't applicable to an ICE (internal combustion engine). But the savings overall are significant.