Still want an EV? (NO POLITICS)

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by SoCal_NSX

literally everything u state is bullshit
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/el...-vehicle-myths

Oh isn't that cute, SoCal thinnks the EPA is a reliable and trustworthy source on climate change and EV's. Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation, the checks in the mail and .....

[Car-Addicted]

Things that make you go Hmmmm. Well maybe not for BGM-M3COMP or SoCal_NSX

In the 1930s, the government's Heat Wave Index was four times higher
Government researchers have been tracking heat waves for more than 100 years. According to data from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which is made available by the Environmental Protection Agency, the annual heat wave index for the contiguous 48 states was substantially higher in the 1930s than at any point in recent years. In some years in the 1930s, it was four times greater or even more.



Today the high is forecast to be 85deg and it is a heat advisory warning.

[KRS_SN]

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/e-bike-bat...160300789.html

[David70]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

David70 Some of your links are broken? Yes I really do read articles that don't promote my personal viewpoints.

They are all from Murf the Surf's post above. Not sure why the links got broken.

Originally Posted by Murf the Surf

The point is that there are real issues with EV's when they catch fire and that they are heavier with quicker acceleration than ICE vehicles. To just dismiss those issues is short sited.

I never dismissed anything, I've already said the fires are more difficult to extinguish. If you come up with any data that EV's are more dangerous than ICE's please post it. I am not defending EV's just waiting on some proof.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Exactly. 900-mile battery and 15-minute recharge. I won't believe it until it's proven and is affordable for the average car owner.

Nothing personal.

You set a goal for EV's that they need to hit before you will buy one. Good for you. Makes zero difference to me, buy or don't buy one.

[RM7]

Good news!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/porsche-s...103000229.html

[David70]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

So what we KNOW:
1)EV's are not green (material production and transportation makes them a bigger source of CO2 than similar ICE vehicles).

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/business/electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint-batteries.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAll%20studies%20ag ree%20that%20electric,faster%20you'll%20recoup.%E2 %80%9D

“All studies agree that electric vehicles save between 50 to 70 percent CO2 equivalents and that the time needed to recoup the additional emissions caused by battery production is one to two years. The more you drive, the faster you’ll recoup.”

This January, another study, conducted by Ricardo PLC for the Fuels Institute, a nonprofit think tank focusing on transit and fuel, found similar results. In 200,000 miles of driving, a typical internal combustion vehicle would emit 66 tons of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. A battery electric vehicle would emit 39 tons over that same distance. And within 19,000 miles, the higher emissions caused by battery manufacturing would be offset by lower emissions from driving an electric vehicle.

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

So what we KNOW:
2)There is not enough material to produce the batteries to complete government EV plans.

Source for this? You think we have discovered all minerals available?

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

So what we KNOW:
3)The current power grid is not capable of supporting significant change to EV's.

Over the next 30 years we will need to upgrade the power grid. The idea something will have to change over time is not a reason to not do something.
In the 60's and 70's we converted most houses in the U.S. to A/C, it runs around the clock taking up far more power than EV's ever will. 60 years later we have the same problem and even more options for increasing supply.

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

So what we KNOW:
4)EV's sales are supported by government largess and majority of cars are leases.
5)EV battery recycling is not currently viable and most are sent to land fills.
6)EV batteries when damaged produce massive fires and vehicle destruction.
7)Fire departments are having problems with EV fires due to the intensity of the fire and the massive quantity of water required to control the burn.
8)EV being heavier have reduced tire life and increased road wear.
9)EV vehicle depreciation is higher that similar ICE vehicles.

I agree on most of these. Why do we care that EV's are leases? EV battery recycling is something that needs to be fixed. ICE's also cause fires, yet to see anything saying an EV is more dangerous than an ICE. Fire departments definitely have problems putting out EV fires & this needs to be looked at. part of the problem is they don't have the training/equipment. Increased road wear from the weight? A semi carries 80k lbs. over 18 wheels (4,444 lbs. per tire), interested in hearing how much the average EV changes road wear. Technically a car full of fat people also increase road/tire wear.

[David70]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

It makes perfect sense: I'm not up to it, as I said in my last post.

You are late to the party, sorry you missed it.

Post after post that you don't have the time or interest to prove it again.
I missed it, my loss. No need to say more, nobody is buying it.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

But remember, proof =/= belief. Absent proof, some will just choose to believe the upside of Ice outweighs the upside of EV, and some of the risks we have discussed are part of their equation. It is all based on facts and evidence, even if "proof" is hard to find. There are plenty of things that can't be "proven" that we still act upon, man-made global warming is one of them. There is plenty of evidence and facts, but proving it is an elusive standard. The "prove it" standard is part of the problem really, and is getting in the way of making meaningful strides in what may be the right direction. Many just choose to believe what they believe because they have seen enough.

I also can't prove my wife loves me, but I'm not ready to walk away absent proof.

I ask for proof that an EV is more dangerous than an ICE before I believe it and this is what you come back with? Some things can't be proven and you can't prove your wife loves you? You posted above that you already proved it and don't have time/interest to look it up again so what in the world are you talking about?

[BGM-M3COMP]

David70 is killin them!!!! Lmaooooo

Time to make another bag of popcorn!!!!

[David70]

Originally Posted by RM7

Good news!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/porsche-s...103000229.html

I agree. Both longer range & solid state batteries would drastically help the program. If there was an 800 mile battery, would be interesting to see how many really want to pay for it. As a two car family would still prefer one vehicle to just have a basic, day to day battery (400 mile range?) with a battery half the size/weight/cost of the 800 mile range.

Even the 1 car person might not want to pay for this type of range, depending on how they use it as the charging network grows and charging time drops.

The odds of large improvements in EV's over time is massively greater than the odds of large improvements in ICE's.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I didn't set that goal, Toyota did. My BEV goal would be a 5 min. recharge of 420 miles (avg. for a 16 gallon tank at 27 mpg) year round anywhere in the USA. BUT as I have stated numerous times in my previous posts I think battery EV is a non-solution pipe dream. I've stated my EV goal is the Serial Hybrid is the best way to achieve a far lower average public fuel consumption. Serial hybrids woyld not disrupt any current industries supporting transportation nor reqire lowering societal living standards.

I do not see there is a need for "a solution" because I do not think we are facing a climate crisis. If I truly did, I kill myself as that is the only logical solution if one believes in anthropogenic climate change. But killing oneself for the sake of the planet is as ridiculous as trying to use a huge battery to power an electric automobile.

You can buy whatever you want, neither my or your opinion will matter much for where the world goes with the program. If batteries don't improve I think plug in hybrids are likely one of the best solutions for how many actually use their car. Problem I have with them is once you are doing a lot of long range driving, going past the electric range, their highway mpg isn't very good, you might as well have a standard hybrid. You also have to deal with plugging it in very day and the maintenance/repair that come with an ICE when many will almost never use the engine. A really complicated powertrain compared to an EV.

As batteries get better, charging times drop, and there are more chargers the benefits of the plug in hybrid over the EV get smaller.

The idea that you would kill yourself if you thought we had a climate crisis is pretty far out there. Everyone has options on doing something positive. I don't see the this as black and white, do nothing or kill myself. I try to make reasonable, positive changes in my life and surroundings. I wouldn't daily drive a car that got 12 mpg, it isn't going to save the world but this waste also isn't doing my part.

[PhaceN52]

Originally Posted by David70

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/business/electric-vehicles-carbon-footprint-batteries.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAll%20studies%20ag ree%20that%20electric,faster%20you'll%20recoup.%E2 %80%9D

“All studies agree that electric vehicles save between 50 to 70 percent CO2 equivalents and that the time needed to recoup the additional emissions caused by battery production is one to two years. The more you drive, the faster you’ll recoup.”

This January, another study, conducted by Ricardo PLC for the Fuels Institute, a nonprofit think tank focusing on transit and fuel, found similar results. In 200,000 miles of driving, a typical internal combustion vehicle would emit 66 tons of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. A battery electric vehicle would emit 39 tons over that same distance. And within 19,000 miles, the higher emissions caused by battery manufacturing would be offset by lower emissions from driving an electric vehicle.

Even deleting cookies I can't read the article, does it specifies the source for the electricity? I can see this producing by nuclear or common green sources like hydro/wind

then

*image*

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/c...ions-by-sector
(Seems data from Oxford University, there's A LOT of interesting data apart from this graph)

That's for all kind of transport on land, air and sea, and when we usually refer to "industry" I think it's to "Electr and heat", "Manufacturing" and "Industry" combined
Just a bit skeptical, not defending a cause

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I disagree with your last statement.

Why? You think ICE's have a long way to go? Stop/start and thin oils were used up for tiny gains, anything on the horizon?

[PhaceN52]

"Why is it important?
Coal still supplies just over a third of global electricity generation even though it is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel"

https://www.iea.org/energy-system/fossil-fuels/coal

What's the typical efficency of a coal power plant?

For Paris tech university ICEs are" between 30 and 35% for small gas engines, and up to 45% for large diesel and gas engines"

For this to work out there should be a huge energy production transition in the world, but it seems less probable than evs mass adoption.. maybe I'm wrong

[David70]

Originally Posted by PhaceN52

Even deleting cookies I can't read the article, does it specifies the source for the electricity? I can see this producing by nuclear or common green sources like hydro/wind

then

*image*

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/c...ions-by-sector
(Seems data from Oxford University)

That's for all kind of transport on land, air and sea, and when we usually refer to "industry" I think it's to "Electr and heat", "Manufacturing" and "Industry" combined
Just a bit skeptical, not defending a cause

Using our grid as it stands. U.S. is roughly 20% coal, it continues to drop and renewables and natural gas continue to go up.



https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...-in-the-us.php



Not sure what the point is of the graph. Transport is only part of the problem? I agree. Our grid continues to get cleaner and I think as the grid gets cleaner it helps most of the other sectors.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by David70

Why? You think ICE's have a long way to go? Stop/start and thin oils were used up for tiny gains, anything on the horizon?

I don't think we have tapped the efficiently of small displacement turbos and/or electronic valve actuation. Efthreeoh posted hybrid is also very interesting.

[PhaceN52]

Originally Posted by David70

Not sure what the point is of the graph. Transport is only part of the problem? I agree. Our grid continues to get cleaner and I think as the grid gets cleaner it helps most of the other sectors.

That increasing energy production for hypotetically power all the new evs in the next 10/15 years with existing plants can't be that "green" or good in terms of co2, and generally you don't create new power plants from scratch in a few years, so that would be interesting... again, hypotesis.

[David70]

Analysis: When do electric vehicles become cleaner than gasoline cars?

Estimate in their study in the U.S. the CO2 break even was at 13,500 miles. 2021 article U.S. was at 23% coal. EV still seems to win vs ICE when it comes to CO2 over the life of the vehicle, even when the grid is almost all coal.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...ysis%20showed.

The Tesla 3 scenario above was for driving in the United States, where 23% of electricity comes from coal-fired plants, with a 54 kilowatt-hour (kWh) battery and a cathode made of nickel, cobalt and aluminum, among other variables.

It was up against a gasoline-fueled Toyota Corolla weighing 2,955 pounds with a fuel efficiency of 33 miles per gallon. It was assumed both vehicles would travel 173,151 miles during their lifetimes.

But if the same Tesla was being driven in Norway, which generates almost all its electricity from renewable hydropower, the break-even point would come after just 8,400 miles.

If the electricity to recharge the EV comes entirely from coal, which generates the majority of the power in countries such as China and Poland, you would have to drive 78,700 miles to reach carbon parity with the Corolla, according to the Reuters analysis of data generated by Argonne's model.

[PhaceN52]

Then, while we discuss pro and cons between ICE/EVs, this goes on in asia
Ok, they're 1 billion... there's too much things to consider if a green approach is really what we want
(not political)

[PhaceN52]

Originally Posted by David70

Analysis: When do electric vehicles become cleaner than gasoline cars?

Estimate in their study in the U.S. the CO2 break even was at 13,500 miles. 2021 article U.S. was at 23% coal. EV still seems to win vs ICE when it comes to CO2 over the life of the vehicle, even when the grid is almost all coal.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...ysis%20showed.

And it seems it's over the life-cycle, so supposedly even with scrapping/recycling the veichle after... interesting

[Car-Addicted]

Not sure we should be worried about climate change. Since we now know that the space aliens are here. They will either benevolently supply us with the solution or they will eat our faces. Either way problem solved.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by David70

Post after post that you don't have the time or interest to prove it again.
I missed it, my loss. No need to say more, nobody is buying it.

Yes, I'm sure you need proof.

I ask for proof that an EV is more dangerous than an ICE before I believe it and this is what you come back with? Some things can't be proven and you can't prove your wife loves you?

We already concluded many posts ago such statements aren't going to be proven here, or today, based on the standards that you are using. Yet you hang your hopes on proof for everything. When you are hungry, do you need proof that your body needs food, or do you just eat? Come on man...

You posted above that you already proved it and don't have time/interest to look it up again so what in the world are you talking about?

I'm saying I'm done trying to prove this to your standard. I've already provided enough info (including proof) to others here to accomplish my goals in this topic. It's not worth it to me any more:




I'm not going to change your mind, and no one else here seems interested discussion here anymore.

Only reason I re-joined the topic was all the logical fallacies (appeal to authority, and appeal to consensus) and the rampant whataboutisim going on. Those aren't the tools of scientific thinking, nor useful for gathering proof.

Authority =/= proof
Consensus =/= proof
whataboutisim is not a tool to measure or find the truth or to be used as proof.