You're Being Lied to About Electric Car

[rangerrebew]

You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars
Science has repeatedly shown EVs are better for humans, despite the meme you just retweeted.
Jonny Lieberman Writer Dec 6, 2022

 
I've heard all the supposed arguments. It seems every time anything even tangentially related to electric cars is published, certain people feel compelled to share their own research. You've probably heard it all, too: A Prius is worse for the planet than a Hummer. EVs are coal-powered cars. Electric cars produce more CO2 than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Lithium mining is uniquely bad for the environment. Cobalt mining relies largely on slave labor, if not child slave labor. Actually, that last part is sadly true. But the rest? Lies. And I'm not even going to get into the hypocrisy of posting anti-EV rhetoric from a lithium-ion-battery-powered phone or laptop.

The first thing we should talk about is direct versus indirect emissions. Gas-powered vehicles have both direct and indirect emissions, while electric cars—I'm specifically talking about battery-powered vehicles, or BEVs, but we will just call them EVs—only have indirect emissions. How so? Both types of cars/trucks/SUVs are manufactured, and the process of building cars involves a global manufacturing effort that uses energy from all sorts of sources. This includes everything from the diesel fuel used to mine and transport metal to the electricity used to manufacture tires. A big knock on EVs is that because most battery production is centered in China, itself a notorious coal-burning country, battery-powered cars begin their service lives with more indirect emissions to their credit.

The above is true. If you take an ICE vehicle and an EV and lock them in a room, by the time the world ends the undriven electric car will have already resulted in more bad stuff than the undriven gas-powered car. But here's the crazy part: Cars are driven. Wild, I know, but it's true. The more EVs get driven, the cleaner they get. This last part would be especially true if the energy used to power EVs is itself CO2-free. But even if it's not, EVs still lead to less emissions over time than cars that burn gasoline

https://www.motortrend.com/theinevitable/

[sneakypete]

@rangerrebew

The more EVs get driven, the cleaner they get.

Uhhhh,pull my finger.

[Smokin Joe]

And here I thought EVs were supposedly more "ecowhacko friendly" because its such a hassle to go cross country in one that people just don't. So, fewer miles driven, the less wear and tear on the planet, or some such silliness.

Obviously, the writer is convinced, and nothing will change their mind. A true believer. Defender of the faith, and all that.

Now come up here to North Dakota in January or February and try that buggy out.

[sneakypete]

And here I thought EVs were supposedly more "ecowhacko friendly" because its such a hassle to go cross country in one that people just don't. So, fewer miles driven, the less wear and tear on the planet, or some such silliness.

Obviously, the writer is convinced, and nothing will change their mind. A true believer. Defender of the faith, and all that.

Now come up here to North Dakota in January or February and try that buggy out.

@Smokin Joe

MY prime concern about electric cars is the damage the batteries do to the environment both during manufacturing AND when it comes to disposal.

Also,something that should receive SERIOUS consideration if the "stealth population control" all-electric vehicles will bring due to their short range and expense.

The left has proven over and over again that their primary concern is population control, and what better way to get more people to move into the city where it is easier to monitor and control that to make privately-owned vehicles too expensive to buy and operate
for the typical blue-collar worker?

IMNSHO,THIS should be THE prime concern when it comes to "going electric" in private transportation.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

MY prime concern about electric cars is the damage the batteries do to the environment both during manufacturing AND when it comes to disposal.

Also,something that should receive SERIOUS consideration if the "stealth population control" all-electric vehicles will bring due to their short range and expense.

The left has proven over and over again that their primary concern is population control, and what better way to get more people to move into the city where it is easier to monitor and control that to make privately-owned vehicles too expensive to buy and operate
for the typical blue-collar worker?

IMNSHO,THIS should be THE prime concern when it comes to "going electric" in private transportation.

At this latitude, my prime concern is simple. People will die if they have to rely on these things here. They will not get you to the next town (130 miles) in -20 weather and heat the cabin, too. What are you supposed to do, stand around and hope the thing is able to get to a plug in and charge when its that cold out?

I agree, the environmental damage (and "carbon footprint") of mining for and disposal of the batteries has not been well considered, and there is no precedent for the large scale disposal of lithium compounds. Simply enough, the unforseen consequences far outweigh the thought of replacing fuels which work to "fix" a problem that may have nothing to do with human activity in the first place. Over the history of the planet it has been much hotter and much colder, and cold isn't healthy for humans and other living things, seals and polar bears excepted.

But like the ozone hole (over a place where virtually no one lives, and not a hole, but a cyclical thin spot, people will go diving down the drain to "fix" it while others get rich and powerful in the process.

The Earth is dynamic, nature is dynamic, and any fool who proposes to make the natural systems static, like setting the thermostat and expecting the climate to be controlled will fail just as surely as if they had set out to stop the Earth's rotation or stem the tides.