So first world nations are moving to ban gas vehicles. Electric vehicles are overpriced & their abilities exaggerated. Reports have been released by actual field testers indicating the electric vehicle manufacturers exaggerate the performance in some cases by over 50%.
Not too long ago California asked people not to charge EVs because of energy shortages.
So how the f— is it going to work when everyone has one ? Electricity rates will probably be higher then oil ever was. I predict it fails spectacularly and forces people back to burning fossil fuels.
they are not more environmentally friendly than fuel efficient gasoline cars.
False.
Electric Vehicle Myths | US EPA
Fact check: Electric vehicles emit less carbon over life than gas cars (usatoday.com)
This started with some fake ass Facebook memes, like most far right garbage.
@zaryia: Nope. You're wrong. Every one of those studies used low mpg to make the numbers work, while assuming advancements in battery production and dusposal that have never materialized.
Those studies also greatly over estimated the feasibility of renewable energy for the electric grid.
Go be a good boy and let the government tell you what you can buy, ok?
@zaryia: Nope. You're wrong. Every one of those studies used low mpg to make the numbers work, while assuming advancements in battery production and dusposal that have never materialized.
Those studies also greatly over estimated the feasibility of renewable energy for the electric grid.
Go be a good boy and let the government tell you what you can buy, ok?
Please provide counter-citation, I am not reading this made up arm chair science. Every study I can find on this says you are wrong.
Factcheck: How electric vehicles help to tackle climate change (carbonbrief.org)
YSE Study Finds Electric Vehicles Provide Lower Carbon Emissions Through Additional Channels | Yale School of the Environment
UCS Publications Templates (ucsusa.org)
Why does 1 side of this argument contain all the information and facts? This is climate denial and anti-vaxxing all over again.
And erasing the difference does not appear to take very long. In astudyconducted by the University of Michigan (with a grant from the Ford Motor Company), the pollution equation evens out between 1.4 to 1.5 years for sedans, 1.6 to 1.9 years for S.U.V.s and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks, based on the average number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States.
The study found that, on average, emissions from B.E.V. sedans were 35 percent of the emissions from an internal-combustion sedan. Electric S.U.V.s produced 37 percent of the emissions of a gasoline-powered counterpart, and a B.E.V. pickup created 34 percent of the emissions of an internal combustion model. (Because gasoline-powered pickups consume more fuel than smaller vehicles, switching to a battery electric pickup results in a greater reduction in emissions.)
@zaryia: Again, the problem is that all the studies take cars that have crappy mpg, and then don't take other factors into account.
Read this article: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/
The break even point is, in that case, 47k miles. HOWEVER, when you use a gas efficient car like a Civic, the numbers jump 30%, or 60k. On top of that, it does not take into account the 3% per year diminishing power of a battery, or the loss of efficiency in the winter.
Hydrogen cars and/or synthetic fuel are better solutions.
@zaryia: Again, the problem is that all the studies take cars that have crappy mpg, and then don't take other factors into account.
Read this article: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/
Hydrogen cars and/or synthetic fuel are better solutions.
Your own article's conclusion:
So, there you have it. Even when using electricity that largely comes from coal, and even factoring in the creation of the battery pack, EVs have a considerably smaller impact on the environment than traditional, gasoline-powered cars.
You only had one job lol.
Yeah I'm going to side with the entire science community and every peer reviewed study on this one. 🤣
@zaryia: Again, the problem is that all the studies take cars that have crappy mpg, and then don't take other factors into account.
Read this article: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/
The break even point is, in that case, 47k miles. HOWEVER, when you use a gas efficient car like a Civic, the numbers jump 30%, or 60k. On top of that, it does not take into account the 3% per year diminishing power of a battery, or the loss of efficiency in the winter.
Hydrogen cars and/or synthetic fuel are better solutions.
Did you... even read the article you linked? You just refuted your own premise. Good job.
47k miles is done in about 3 years for the average American and that article does maths in a WORST-case-scenario of energy efficiency. In other words, it picked the place with the dirtiest energy generation. And kudos for the authors to do that, while most people trying to make a case would cherrypick the best examples, these authors proceeded to do the complete opposite. Demonstrating that even at its worst, EVs still hit equilibrium with gasoline-powered cars in 3 years. Well within its lifespan.
In the other thread you were arguing for Literacy Tests for voting. And considering this post. I have to say... be careful what you wish for.
As for synthetic fuels, they are only efficient if the powergrid the energy grid were manufactured in is renewable. As manufacturing synthetic fuels is very energy intensive. Of course the best solution here is still to get rid of the car itself. I dislike both EVs and fuel powered cars.
@Maroxad: Worst case scenario for producing energy on the electrical grid, yes. Around 80% of the electricity produced in the US comes from fossil fueled power plants.
The "worst-case scenario" is the norm.
Before you go challenging my literacy, maybr get your facts straight, bub.
As for "cherry picking" - that's what you goofball libs did here. The crux of my first comment was "the market is not choosing electric cars, the government is forcing it".
None of you seem to have a problem with that, which speaks volumes.
@Maroxad: Worst case scenario for producing energy on the electrical grid, yes. Around 80% of the electricity produced in the US comes from fossil fueled power plants.
The "worst-case scenario" is the norm.
Before you go challenging my literacy, maybr get your facts straight, bub.
As for "cherry picking" - that's what you goofball libs did here. The crux of my first comment was "the market is not choosing electric cars, the government is forcing it".
None of you seem to have a problem with that, which speaks volumes.
It takes awhile for a shift in the market. More people are going EV, and as more go EV, the prices go down which means even more people buy them. Happens in markets all the time. Not sure why the right is so afraid of progress.
Also when you resort to insults then your argument is worthless. Have a discussion like an adult.
@Maroxad: Worst case scenario for producing energy on the electrical grid, yes. Around 80% of the electricity produced in the US comes from fossil fueled power plants.
The "worst-case scenario" is the norm.
Before you go challenging my literacy, maybr get your facts straight, bub.
As for "cherry picking" - that's what you goofball libs did here. The crux of my first comment was "the market is not choosing electric cars, the government is forcing it".
None of you seem to have a problem with that, which speaks volumes.
It takes awhile for a shift in the market. More people are going EV, and as more go EV, the prices go down which means even more people buy them. Happens in markets all the time. Not sure why the right is so afraid of progress.
Also when you resort to insults then your argument is worthless. Have a discussion like an adult.
That is true - with new technology that people want. I don't see any studies that say "people ant electric cars, there is just a price barrier". What I do see is:
a lot of government funded websites trying to convince people to switch
laws being passed to stop the production and/or purchasing of ICE cars
Instead of letting the market figure out hydrogen, electric, hybrids, synthetic gas; what I see is that the govt chose electric, companies dumped billions into it, and now both are forcing it on everyone.
Have a discussion like an adult? Lib number 4 (@Maroxad - yes, the same 6 libs post here all the time, and I have you all numbered) just challenged my literacy and comprehension skills. It is proper for me to reply in kind.
@Maroxad: Worst case scenario for producing energy on the electrical grid, yes. Around 80% of the electricity produced in the US comes from fossil fueled power plants.
The "worst-case scenario" is the norm.
Before you go challenging my literacy, maybr get your facts straight, bub.
As for "cherry picking" - that's what you goofball libs did here. The crux of my first comment was "the market is not choosing electric cars, the government is forcing it".
None of you seem to have a problem with that, which speaks volumes.
No it is not. They explicitly took the power grid with the highest CO2 emissions per GWh. Power Grids vary heavily in the USA.
The differences get even higher when you look at a muncipality level.
You cited a source that flat out refuted your own claim. There is no way around the fact that you debunked your own argument.
Edit: And there is a difference between the snark I made here, and the juvenile name-calling you have been doing in this thread and elsewhere (such as a thread where you called me a sciolist).
This whole anti-electric car nonsense is just BS pushed by right-wing loons who are paid by big oil. NO one should ever take the right seriously on any issue.
Have a discussion like an adult? Lib number 4 (@Maroxad - yes, the same 6 libs post here all the time, and I have you all numbered) just challenged my literacy and comprehension skills. It is proper for me to reply in kind.
Gotta post that list, can't tease us like this.
Also learn how to read. Seems like a common thing for you GOP supporters that reading isn't very important.
Whether or not if you know how to read. You did end up citing a source that refuted your own claim. Let me help you out
On to the math. Even within the continental US, where you live has a huge impact on your overall emissions. I wanted to do the worst-case-scenario math for the EV and to do that I needed to pick the place with the dirtiest energy generation possible. According to the EPA, that's a section of the grid called the Midwest Reliability Organization East, an area in the central part of the continental US that gets just 14% of its power from renewable sources.
As we can tell by this paragraph, for the sake of this article, they picked the dirtiest power grid they could find. Which gave them the results of
210 grams of CO2 per mile driven for the Tesla
336 grams of CO2 per mile driven for the BMW
After factoring in the manufacturing emissions
That data estimates 7,300 kg of CO2 is generated for the creation of a 100 kilowatt-hour Tesla battery pack. Since the Model 3 has a roughly 75 kWh battery pack, we can reduce that figure to 5,500 kg of CO2.
And after plugging in some numbers they estimate that,
But, based on the per-mile figures above, we can do the math on just how long it would take to offset that. The answer? 47,413 miles, or a little over three years of average driving for the average American. After that, the Tesla Model 3 has made up its deficit and will forevermore be cleaner than the BMW.
And an EV lasts longer than 3 years. Conservative estimates, factor in around 15 years of life for a modern EV. That means that by year 3 out of 15, the EV will be less damaging to the environment.
And this doesn't even factor in the massive advancements made to battery tech this year.
Edit: And please post that list. I want to be Lib #1
1) I already said: 80% of our power plants use fossil fuels, his "most dirtiest place" is the norm.
2) like I said earlier, he picked a 25mpg car. His numbers would be different if he used a car like a Civic.
My earlier point, which I correctly illustrated, was that most of these "look how awesome electric cars are" articles use favorable circumstances - even when they say they are not.
1) I already said: 80% of our power plants use fossil fuels, his "most dirtiest place" is the norm.
2) like I said earlier, he picked a 25mpg car. His numbers would be different if he used a car like a Civic.
My earlier point, which I correctly illustrated, was that most of these "look how awesome electric cars are" articles use favorable circumstances - even when they say they are not.
1. 18% of the US's power plants are from nuclear. 22% are from renewables, combined they make up around a little under 40%. This means that fossil fuels make up around 60%, not 80%. That grid they used as an example was significantly worse in that regard.
2. A civic would on average, have made it 4.5 years before its CO2 output is higher than the EV. And that is still a worst case scenario for EVs. Which at point 1, I demonstrated to be a pretty significant difference. So even your Civic eexample, would have lasted 15 years. This made your scenario even worse. Because an almost best case scenario for the gasoline powered car, loses out to the Tesla in a worst case scenario in about 4-5 years. A modern EV has a life expectancy of 15 years, and 15 years is on the lower end.
Your article explicitly used unfavorable conditions for the EV.
This whole anti-electric car nonsense is just BS pushed by right-wing loons who are paid by big oil. NO one should ever take the right seriously on any issue.
The problem for you is the right uses common sense in their logic. Electric cars have major problems: environmentally, cost, performance in cold weather, and hot weather areas, time to recharge, and travel distance. They are good for local use but not long distance. If someone wants to buy an electric car fine but don't force people who don't want one to but them.
@Maroxad: I did misread the chart (I didn't see the line for nuclear, just the 21% renewable (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3).
It doesn't make my "situation worse" because the break even point is further away. A 36 or 42 mpg car is cleaner than a 26 mpg car.
Again, you and the other libbies in here seem to be ok with the government forcing everyone on EVs, I'm not. The crux of my original comment was that - the market is not choosing electric over gas, the government is. The "electric car propaganda machine" is in full charge ahead mode, and sheep like you are lining up to be sheered.
Predictably, all you libbies ignored that part (because you love big government almost as much as you love big government telling you what to do), and instead went after my "EV vs ICE pollution" line.
This whole anti-electric car nonsense is just BS pushed by right-wing loons who are paid by big oil. NO one should ever take the right seriously on any issue.
The problem for you is the right uses common sense in their logic. Electric cars have major problems: environmentally, cost, performance in cold weather, and hot weather areas, time to recharge, and travel distance. They are good for local use but not long distance. If someone wants to buy an electric car fine but don't force people who don't want one to but them.
Hahahaha Now that's funny. No one is forcing you Jim. What was that about common sense and logic?
I do believe California is banning the sale of new gas burning cars in a few years, and the EU did the same (although it was suspended due to Porche's synthetic gas). The Biden admin is changing the EPA rules to effectively force car co.anies to not produce ICE cars, while subsidizing battery companies.
I do believe California is banning the sale of new gas burning cars in a few years, and the EU did the same (although it was suspended due to Porche's synthetic gas). The Biden admin is changing the EPA rules to effectively force car co.anies to not produce ICE cars, while subsidizing battery companies.
This whole anti-electric car nonsense is just BS pushed by right-wing loons who are paid by big oil. NO one should ever take the right seriously on any issue.
Kind of obvious. Either they are paid off, or were tricked by the propaganda of someone who was paid-off.
They don't even have real sources, and are acting like their arm-chair science fiction refutes almost every single study on EVs.
The problem for you is the right uses common sense in their logic. Electric cars have major problems: environmentally, cost, performance in cold weather, and hot weather areas, time to recharge, and travel distance. They are good for local use but not long distance. If someone wants to buy an electric car fine but don't force people who don't want one to but them.
@Maroxad: I did misread the chart (I didn't see the line for nuclear, just the 21% renewable (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3).
It doesn't make my "situation worse" because the break even point is further away. A 36 or 42 mpg car is cleaner than a 26 mpg car.
Again, you and the other libbies in here seem to be ok with the government forcing everyone on EVs, I'm not. The crux of my original comment was that - the market is not choosing electric over gas, the government is. The "electric car propaganda machine" is in full charge ahead mode, and sheep like you are lining up to be sheered.
Predictably, all you libbies ignored that part (because you love big government almost as much as you love big government telling you what to do), and instead went after my "EV vs ICE pollution" line.
You all would make Pavlov proud.
You keep moving the goalpost. but I still score. Unless you have a car with a 125 mpg. You wont meet EVs in terms of environmental impact in a worst case scenario. I cannot get the actual data on how the power grid in the region looks like, so I could do the maths myself. But sadly I am region blocked.
Either way, you seem to be pivoting away from your environmental argument. Since it is clear you had no leg to stand on. Unfortunately your argument is just as weak since it seems to be rooted in a false dillemma. It assumes people can only get around via cars, which is just not true. There are trains, trams, streetcars, walking, and the one I use: Cycling.
Using the worst-case-scenario estimates, my emissions per mile are about 8g of CO2. This is extremely likely to significantly overestimate my own transportation emissions: considering my energy grid and diet.
Do you see the flaws of your position though? You are constantly having to find the best-case scenarios and a false dilemma to support your arguments, meanwhile I can comfortably use worst-case scenarios and still run circles around you. Your best doesnt even come close to my worst.
I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't buy.
EVs are not *that* much better for the environment than fuel efficient cars. Some hybrids get into the mid 50 mpg range.
There are alternatives to EVs that we should be researching. A lot of people have legitimate gripes about electric cars: they do not want to wait hours to charge their vehicles, EVs suck in the winter, they are expensive, they (will) have terrible resale value, and some people just don't like how they drive. But, thanks to zealous politicians like Biden, we are all being forced to adopt EVs; and that is not right.
If this goes through unchecked, what's next? Target the agriculture industry and let the government control the food supply? After all, it's the 2nd biggest sector for CO2 emissions.
The United States and the EU only account for 24% of CO2 pollution (above link) - who is going to wrangle in the rest of the world (China produces more CO2 than the US and EU combined), especially when no one can force them to use what many consider to be the inferior solution (EVs)? If we let the market solve the problem, then an alternative to gasoline powered cars that was truly superior could be created, and this wouldn't be a problem. But, it is with EVs, and that's why there are 1000s of sites trying so desperately to convince people that EVs are a good way to go.
@dabear: Banning ICE cars is not that big a move really. If anything, governments having to heavily subsidize the ICE cars, bully or outright invade other countries over oil and having to deal with the damages caused by ICE cars. Require a far bigger government rather than just dealing with the root of the problem. Which are the ICE cars themselves.
Not that it is necessary, ICE cars just aren't sustainable anyways economically speaking. The current price shock we have today. Is why people are moving to EVs. Because EV fuel prices are just far less unstable. People like stability, and ICE cars have been demonstrated to be anything but.
But freedom doesnt just mean freedom from government. There is more to freedom than just negative freedoms. There are also positive freedoms to consider. The fact is, when you use an ICE, you are actively harming everyone else. We don't exist in a bubble. You are harming our youth, and their future too. The inconvenience you face by swapping to an EV, is insignificant compared to the inconvenience they face by the environmental damage we have caused. You are not a victim here.
Yes, there are alternatives to EVs. We don't need to research them because they are already here.
For long distance travel, we call them trains: This is faster, more environmentally friendly, cheaper, and you can read a book, rather than gluing your eyes on the highway. As a software developer, I have developed plenty of solutions while riding the train.
For shorter distance travel, bicycles: That exercise you get from merely commuting, also means lower medical bills, no fuel costs, significantly cheaper maintainance, less sleep, you feel way better and so many other benefits.
So yes, by all means invest and research into alternatives to the EV. The EV is still bad. Just not as bad as the ICE car.
Edit: And no, the difference is quite notable, especially if you live on a mostly renewable energy grid.
67% of US oil consumption is done for transportation.
How many regime changes have the US pushed for in the name of protecting its oil interests? How many democratically elected governments overthrown? You claim to be against big government, but how many democracies have been ruined, how many despots have been propped up, how many countries destabilized and how many freedoms have been taken away across the globe in the name of the ICE cars that you defend.
Maybe you see ICE cars as a symbol of freedom. I don't. I see them as an enabler of tyranny.
This whole anti-electric car nonsense is just BS pushed by right-wing loons who are paid by big oil. NO one should ever take the right seriously on any issue.
The problem for you is the right uses common sense in their logic. Electric cars have major problems: environmentally, cost, performance in cold weather, and hot weather areas, time to recharge, and travel distance. They are good for local use but not long distance. If someone wants to buy an electric car fine but don't force people who don't want one to but them.
Hahahaha Now that's funny. No one is forcing you Jim. What was that about common sense and logic?
Lets see the Biden goal to ban all vehicles using fossil fuel by 2035, the ongoing war on fossil fuel energy, of course with the election in 2024 he has swung back to the middle approving a pipe line a d granting a permit to drill in Alaska. I think I pretty much spelled out the logic in the problems with electric cars in my earlier post. The government is also going after gas stoves, gas heating, and air conditioning. When ask publicly they deny it, but privately itis all ahead full steam. One thing about the left they force people to accept their agenda because most people don't accept what is being pushed.
The problem for you is the right uses common sense in their logic. Electric cars have major problems: environmentally, cost, performance in cold weather, and hot weather areas, time to recharge, and travel distance. They are good for local use but not long distance. If someone wants to buy an electric car fine but don't force people who don't want one to but them.
@Maroxad: I did misread the chart (I didn't see the line for nuclear, just the 21% renewable (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3).
It doesn't make my "situation worse" because the break even point is further away. A 36 or 42 mpg car is cleaner than a 26 mpg car.
Again, you and the other libbies in here seem to be ok with the government forcing everyone on EVs, I'm not. The crux of my original comment was that - the market is not choosing electric over gas, the government is. The "electric car propaganda machine" is in full charge ahead mode, and sheep like you are lining up to be sheered.
Predictably, all you libbies ignored that part (because you love big government almost as much as you love big government telling you what to do), and instead went after my "EV vs ICE pollution" line.
You all would make Pavlov proud.
You keep moving the goalpost. but I still score. Unless you have a car with a 125 mpg. You wont meet EVs in terms of environmental impact in a worst case scenario. I cannot get the actual data on how the power grid in the region looks like, so I could do the maths myself. But sadly I am region blocked.
Either way, you seem to be pivoting away from your environmental argument. Since it is clear you had no leg to stand on. Unfortunately your argument is just as weak since it seems to be rooted in a false dillemma. It assumes people can only get around via cars, which is just not true. There are trains, trams, streetcars, walking, and the one I use: Cycling.
Using the worst-case-scenario estimates, my emissions per mile are about 8g of CO2. This is extremely likely to significantly overestimate my own transportation emissions: considering my energy grid and diet.
Do you see the flaws of your position though? You are constantly having to find the best-case scenarios and a false dilemma to support your arguments, meanwhile I can comfortably use worst-case scenarios and still run circles around you. Your best doesnt even come close to my worst.
In cold weather the EV loses 40% of its range right off the bat. If you turn on the heat to warm the car you lose more range. To counter that it is recommended by the makers that you only use the heated seats of course the windows will fog. On the environmental you can't dispose of the batteries they do too much damage top the environment not counting the damage to the environment in obtaining the material just to make them.
@JimB: You lack common sense, Jim. No one is forced to buy an electric car and never will be.
Do you follow the news? If you did you would see the long range goal of the green agenda. Look at the policies that are going to be enacted to reach zero carbon emissions, if achieved will not matter one iota in controlling the temperature of the planet which is the goal of this exercise.
In cold weather the EV loses 40% of its range right off the bat. If you turn on the heat to warm the car you lose more range. To counter that it is recommended by the makers that you only use the heated seats of course the windows will fog. On the environmental you can't dispose of the batteries they do too much damage top the environment not counting the damage to the environment in obtaining the material just to make them.
35% range loss is a worst case scenario for EVs. Most have a shortfall between 20-25%. Some go even lower than that.
Even when factoring in for those mining and such, an EV still in a worst case scneario, does less harm to the environment than an ICE car.
Hahahaha Now that's funny. No one is forcing you Jim. What was that about common sense and logic?
Lets see the Biden goal to ban all vehicles using fossil fuel by 2035, the ongoing war on fossil fuel energy, of course with the election in 2024 he has swung back to the middle approving a pipe line a d granting a permit to drill in Alaska. I think I pretty much spelled out the logic in the problems with electric cars in my earlier post. The government is also going after gas stoves, gas heating, and air conditioning. When ask publicly they deny it, but privately itis all ahead full steam. One thing about the left they force people to accept their agenda because most people don't accept what is being pushed.
US govt EV policy doesn't really matter anymore in terms of the transformation of the auto industry.
What it is really designed to do is promote US manufacturing and save the domestic auto manufacturing business from destruction.
The manufacturers themselves have already decided they HAVE to move to EVs or go out of business. It is really that simple now and the trend is irreversible.
Like everything else, once capitalism gets moving it transforms entire industries typically through technological development. That is what is happening now. You only need to pay attention to what every manufacturer is actually investing in now. It also helps to understand the fundamentals and trend of EV battery energy density and what that means both in terms of cost and range.
Once you realize that your competitors can actually achieve cost & range parity with ICE you know you are doomed unless you join them.
@JimB: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will help slow the rate of warming, but thanks for replying with your words of wisdom, Jim. As usual, they were very enlightening. 😂
US govt EV policy doesn't really matter anymore in terms of the transformation of the auto industry.
What it is really designed to do is promote US manufacturing and save the domestic auto manufacturing business from destruction.
The manufacturers themselves have already decided they HAVE to move to EVs or go out of business. It is really that simple now and the trend is irreversible.
Like everything else, once capitalism gets moving it transforms entire industries typically through technological development. That is what is happening now. You only need to pay attention to what every manufacturer is actually investing in now. It also helps to understand the fundamentals and trend of EV battery energy density and what that means both in terms of cost and range.
Once you realize that your competitors can actually achieve cost & range parity with ICE you know you are doomed unless you join them.
Yup, It is the same here in europe. People are already adopting EVs and electric alternatives to fossil fuels at a rapid rate regardless of the government.
Reason here is very simple: Russia. People like stability, and fossil fuels have been shown to be anything but. People can moan about the wind and sun. But those are far more reliable than the Russian and other OPEC+ governments. Regardless of political affiliation, virtually everyone here dislikes russia. Save for a few tankies.
Usa and Europe are mostly worried that china is going to eat their lunch, as china has been financing battery production infraestructure and subsidizing electric car companies for the better part of a decade now. It currently has the most electric vehicles start ups in the world and the largest market as well.
If they don't create these barriers to entry on their own market (by subsidizing only local production) they risk loosing them and the automotive industry as a wealth Creator engine.
@zaryia: That is far right politics for ya. Complete rejection of science and reality itself. This is usually done with a complete rejection, or misinterpretation of facts. Then performing mental gymnastics as to why that they don't have evidence on their side, and trying to use political arguments in place of evidence. Notice how Dabear abandoned the scientific argument entirely in favor of some false allegation of "I don't want EVs forced on me". To their credit however, they didn't say something stupid like this,
"Again the only thing you will accept is a counter study which you know don't exist. I'm telling you why they don't exist. They will soon hopefully."
1) I already said: 80% of our power plants use fossil fuels, his "most dirtiest place" is the norm.
2) like I said earlier, he picked a 25mpg car. His numbers would be different if he used a car like a Civic.
My earlier point, which I correctly illustrated, was that most of these "look how awesome electric cars are" articles use favorable circumstances - even when they say they are not.
Factually, 60% of US electricity generation comes from fossil fuels.
Factually, of that roughly 40% of generation is NG, while coal is 20%.
Factually, NG emits less than 1/2 of the GHG emissions per KWh as coal in electricity production.
Factually, the most dirty places represent only 1/5 of the US and are not the norm.
US Electricity Generation 2022
US Emissions by Generation Type
This reality is exactly why NG is considered a bridge fuel for the next few decades until enough renewables can be built. It is much less than coal on emissions and is plentiful. It is also very good as backup dispatchable generation since a combined cycle generation plant can spool up within 15 mins. This is also why it is often paired with renewables.
@JimB: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will help slow the rate of warming, but thanks for replying with your words of wisdom, Jim. As usual, they were very enlightening. 😂
Except the scientists pushing climate change report all these action will have no effect on global temperature.
@SUD123456: "You're like a child who walks in to the middle of a movie..."
--Walter describing Donnie, which applies to you.
You spent all that time typing a post for which all points were all ready covered. Did it make you feel better to join in on the libbie ranting? Get your liberal social justice masturbation done?
Good.
Maybe next time, read all the comments before you post, k?
Log in to comment