EVs pollute more than gas vehicles!

[ElDiabloJoe]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)

[Bill14564]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)

Interesting articles. EVs produce more particles from tire wear than gasoline engines produce in exhaust. Okay, but how do the particles from EVs compare to particles from cars with gasoline engines? I get 40K miles from my tires, if EVs produce 400 times the particles that must mean 400 times the wear and so they should last 400 times less or about 100 miles. I don't hear many people talking about changing their EV tires every 400 miles.

The article mentions "particulate matter (air pollution)" several times yet then goes on to say "the majority of particulate emissions released from the tire go directly into the soil and water, while exhaust negatively affects the air quality." It doesn't seem like air pollution if it doesn't go into the air.

So a tires to exhaust comparison? A soil and water pollution to air pollution comparison? An apples to oranges comparison?

The headline is impressive, the data... not so much (at least the way this article presented it).

It will be interesting to read the study.

[mickey100]

Are you people even serious? The daily mail is in the same category of tabloid journalism as the National Enquirer. No wonder we have so many ill informed people in this country if this is the type of trash that they use as their source of information. Unbelievable.

[Caymus]

Are you people even serious? The daily mail is in the same category of tabloid journalism as the National Enquirer. No wonder we have so many ill informed people in this country if this is the type of trash that they use as their source of information. Unbelievable.

I get all my news from Mother Jones and MSNBC.

[Topspinmo]

Interesting articles. EVs produce more particles from tire wear than gasoline engines produce in exhaust. Okay, but how do the particles from EVs compare to particles from cars with gasoline engines? I get 40K miles from my tires, if EVs produce 400 times the particles that must mean 400 times the wear and so they should last 400 times less or about 100 miles. I don't hear many people talking about changing their EV tires every 400 miles.

The article mentions "particulate matter (air pollution)" several times yet then goes on to say "the majority of particulate emissions released from the tire go directly into the soil and water, while exhaust negatively affects the air quality." It doesn't seem like air pollution if it doesn't go into the air.

So a tires to exhaust comparison? A soil and water pollution to air pollution comparison? An apples to oranges comparison?

The headline is impressive, the data... not so much (at least the way this article presented it).

It will be interesting to read the study.

Wouldn’t that make it worse polluting the ground and water? At least that thing that was invented for exhaust emissions in mid 70s scrubs most carbon monoxide out of air.

[Topspinmo]

I get all my news from Mother Jones and MSNBC.

I only listen to Bernie.

[Topspinmo]

Are you people even serious? The daily mail is in the same category of tabloid journalism as the National Enquirer. No wonder we have so many ill informed people in this country if this is the type of trash that they use as their source of information. Unbelievable.

IMO Actually they are fair with no agendas. Attack everyone. More than I can say about most news sources.

[golfing eagles]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)

Great, now you've done it!

That post is sure to draw out 2 of my "favorite" posters and their global warming fantasy tirade. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Boomer]

…………AND We’re Off!

While I have no intention of buying an EV, my reasons have nothing to do with loaded tabloids like The Daily News. I like my dependable old Accord and have no need to buy a car that costs more than my first house — and that would be ANY car these days.

But when did Americans lose the ability to think for themselves, to read between the lines, to look deep for the motive behind what is very loosely called news, to NEVER fall for the old divide-and-conquer game, and to make decisions based on the pros and cons…….

Speaking of cons, by now we all should know that the old “Do your own research” pukefest of a line we have been hearing for years simply means that you can go online and find lots of articles to agree with your own narrow opinion.

You can then bask in your own echo chamber and never have to bother to look any further or to welcome an exchange of ideas.

Maybe branch out, expand horizons, and instead of clinging to such sources as The Daily News, tune in to The Daily Show, but only on Monday nights, 11 PM, Comedy Central because Jon Stewart has returned — but he works only on Mondays.

If you think you might like good satire instead of tabloid hype style, you might end up laughing and having a good time in my echo chamber.

Boomer

[Cuervo]

Look this is beating a dead horse.
One side believes EVs are going to save the planet and the other side will try to find any faults with EVs.
Let take a look at reality, EVs are evolving and if we ignore that fact it will be at our peril.
This is a new market, and the Chinese are already capturing the European market with their EVs.
We will wake up one day and find we no longer have an auto industry because we refuse to accept change.
This has nothing to do with pollution or saving the planet, this comes down to profits.
The very people that are pro ICE will wake up one day, not look in the mirror and try to find someone to blame that China has taken all our auto industry jobs.
If this industry and our country is going to survive, we have to invest in the future and I'm not just talking about EVs.

[Two Bills]

The Daily Mail is a right (far) of center newspaper.
Extravagant headlines sell papers.
The Mail has a long history of over egging the omelette, and exaggeration. As long as there is a source, however way out, if it will sell a paper, they will publish.
Their retractions and lawsuit payouts are testimony to their "print and be damned" style.
Must confess to buying it every Friday and Saturday though.
It has the best television program schedule of any other newspaper on Saturday, and my favorite journalist (Littlejohn) on Fridays.

[MandoMan]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)

Bear in mind that the Daily Mail is wildly popular in the UK because it’s a scandal rag that will twist the facts of any story to get more sales. This is the paper that launched the garbage about The Villages being a hotbed of STDs with beds full of swingers. Twisted data that gives a false conclusion.

I drive a Prius Prime. That has gasoline engine and batteries I recharge in my garage that will give me about twenty-five miles of driving without the gas engine coming on. That covers most of my driving unless I’m going to the airport or something. As a result, over four years in The Villages, the car is averaging 150 miles per gallon of gas—far better than your golf cart. Given the low cost of electricity here, when I’m running on battery only, it costs me about two cents per mile. If I were to drive to Minneapolis in the winter, starting the car wouldn’t be a problem because it would run on gas until the batteries warm up.

[Laker14]

With the condition of our two existing cars, and the low number of miles we drive yearly, our two cars could easily last another 10 years. Unless we crack one up, any car purchase before that would be discretionary.
If we approach the far end of that range it will be interesting to see what is available and with a reliable track record by then. It will be even more interesting to see if any of that is affordable to us.

[crash]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)

So funny you only believe what fits your narrative no matter what the source is. Can you really believe that tire dust from electric vehicles is worse for the environment than tailpipe exhaust fumes.

[Altawood]

Right. And the election was stolen. Oswald had 12 accomplices and we never made it to the moon.

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)

[GizmoWhiskers]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)
Look up. Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI) have now earned the status of having cloud names. The national weather gods have created new cloud names to "explain" the lingering, all day effects of the aluminum and other chemicals being spewed over The Villages (and the rest of the world) all day, on many days of the month, each month of the year.

The crazy "beauitiful" sunsets we now see that we never USED to see. They are the accummulation of chemicals moving about in the stratosphere to eventually make their way to the water every creature in The Villages and elsewhere drink. Look up...

They have admitted for years now that the LONG lingering trails in the stratosphere are not vapor.

While people debate ev and gas they fail to look up. Chemtrails, the laughable phenonomon for over a decade, are not so laughable if you research Stratospheric Aerosol Injections.

Geoengineering and climate engineering ARE career choices. The haze over The Villages is air plane produced.

Ok, climate change in The Villages brought on by gas cars or golf carts OR the lingering lack of sun via SAI ?? One can remove their tin foil hat now and join a world debate.

Yes, they say let's dry up the planet and shield out the sun all in the name of "climate change". Let's, perform "cloud seeding" and flood the planet like CA just experienced all in the name of c c. Let's spray the heck out of the stratosphere for every living thing to breathe in. Let's cure cancer.

In the wrong hands could this technology be harmful to The Villages or are gas cars worse? EV cars worse? Seems to me these two things are harmless in comparison to SAI by the "powers that be".

NOAA CSL: 2024 News & Events: CCould drying the stratosphere help cool the planet? (https://csl.noaa.gov/news/2024/399_0228.html)

Cloud Classification (https://www.weather.gov/lmk/cloud_classification)

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection | A SRM Geoengineering Climate Solution (https://geoengineering.global/stratospheric-aerosol-injection/)

[Southwest737]

The single motor Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus weighs in at 3,582 lbs.
The other two dual-motor Model 3 trims, Long Range and Performance, both weigh in at 4,065 lbs.
Curb weight of a Toyota Camry is 3580 lbs.
I drive a M3LR and after 20,000 miles tire wear is normal. Plenty of tread for at least another 20k.
What a POC article. More lies about EVs. The truth is it’s the best car we have owned. We did not buy it due to climate change. We bought it because it is highly efficient torque beast that blows away antiquated inefficient ICE vehicles.

[sowtime444]

Let me sum up the article for those who don't wish to read it, by using an analogy.

There are two men who fart really badly, Eddie and Gus. Eddie changes his diet and now never farts at all. Gus is furious, because the women who prefer nice smelling air don't want to date him anymore. But then Gus notices that Eddie still takes large poops. In fact, they are 20%-30% larger than Gus's poops, and thus smell 20%-30% worse. Gus points this out to all of the women, and includes a chart which shows that a 20%-30% poop-size increase is hundreds or even thousands of times HEAVIER than the fart particulates that he emits.

[opinionist]

I don't care about the political agenda that pushes EVs. I have a Toyota Prius that gets 66 MPG and don't care about the price of gas. Some would say that the Green New Deal is dumb as a box of rocks but that would be an insult to the box of rocks. I am waiting to see how those high speed railroads are going to be built across the ocean.

[jabacon6669]

How about they just finally release the hydrogen engine. Just because the big oil companies won't make any money. To bad. Plenty of fuel, H2O or in laymen's terms water. No pollution to my knowledge.

[ThirdOfFive]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)
EV...ICE...its all a pointless argument anyway. The solution of the future is actually a blast from the past: direct biomass converters. MUCH healthier for the environment.

[WesMan]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)
Agree 1000000000%

[ffresh]

Look up. Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI) have now earned the status of having cloud names. The national weather gods have created new cloud names to "explain" the lingering, all day effects of the aluminum and other chemicals being spewed over The Villages (and the rest of the world) all day, on many days of the month, each month of the year.

The crazy "beauitiful" sunsets we now see that we never USED to see. They are the accummulation of chemicals moving about in the stratosphere to eventually make their way to the water every creature in The Villages and elsewhere drink. Look up...

They have admitted for years now that the LONG lingering trails in the stratosphere are not vapor.

While people debate ev and gas they fail to look up. Chemtrails, the laughable phenonomon for over a decade, are not so laughable if you research Stratospheric Aerosol Injections.

Geoengineering and climate engineering ARE career choices. The haze over The Villages is air plane produced.

Ok, climate change in The Villages brought on by gas cars or golf carts OR the lingering lack of sun via SAI ?? One can remove their tin foil hat now and join a world debate.

Yes, they say let's dry up the planet and shield out the sun all in the name of "climate change". Let's, perform "cloud seeding" and flood the planet like CA just experienced all in the name of c c. Let's spray the heck out of the stratosphere for every living thing to breathe in. Let's cure cancer.

In the wrong hands could this technology be harmful to The Villages or are gas cars worse? EV cars worse? Seems to me these two things are harmless in comparison to SAI by the "powers that be".

NOAA CSL: 2024 News & Events: CCould drying the stratosphere help cool the planet? (https://csl.noaa.gov/news/2024/399_0228.html)

Cloud Classification (https://www.weather.gov/lmk/cloud_classification)

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection | A SRM Geoengineering Climate Solution (https://geoengineering.global/stratospheric-aerosol-injection/)

Most folks, IMHO, either have NO clue about what you write, or, will conclude you are a tin foil hat-wearing "conspiracy theorist" because so many are clueless! I agree with everything you wrote except your statement "The haze over The Villages is air plane produced". These chemtrails are delivered into the atmosphere by airplanes but not produced by them. Great response and right on the money. The only thing I would add is that these heavy, toxic metals, i.e. chemtrails also eventually settle onto the soil and, most likely become systemic in many agricultural plants, so eat up and breathe in folks - your government is here to help :crap2:

P..s. Bill Gates and Harvard are heavily involved in this nefarious activity (to benefit mankind, of course :eek:)

Fred

[Justputt]

Just going to make a brief comment. Unless you actually read the article, don't bother commenting. The article is pretty even handed and lands in favor of the EV by my reading. With the real science done at VA Tech, etc. scientists and not those with an axe to grind. It does bring up consideration of the emissions over the lifecycle of EV vs gas, which still favors EV, but not by the slam-dunk some would hope for. We are reminded that the mining, manufacturing, hazmat considerations, emissions from power production to charge the EV, disposal, etc. all need to be considered. From a purely physics standpoint, burning fuel to make electricity to charge and EV to avoid burning fuel is inefficient since you have wasted energy at each step. According to the study, with newer vehicles "...reduce emissions to below 1/1000th of a gram per mile", so you have to wonder if we're upside down on the conversion of fuel to electricity, especially when these calculations don't appear to address power transmission loses. Check out the Electrical Engineering Portal "Transmission" lose is about 17% while "Distribution" lose is about 50%

Attention Required! | Cloudflare (https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission-lines-1)

[Proveone]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)
So your source, The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, known for misinformation, is suppose to convince us that their propaganda is legitimate information. "Nice" try!

[Fastskiguy]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)

Say it with me “click bait”

Joe

[JMintzer]

Great, now you've done it!

That post is sure to draw out 2 of my "favorite" posters and their global warming fantasy tirade. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

"Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!"

https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/ryNq33mQwEHMsC74oXGs2QhufDE=/fit-in/360x240/top/filters:format_auto():upscale()/2017/10/18/754/n/1922283/a080f2baa7556219_1.gif

[Caymus]

So your source, The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, known for misinformation, is suppose to convince us that their propaganda is legitimate information. "Nice" try!

Unlike the slimes and compost?

[Ptmcbriz]

Regardless of present day science….technology will CONTINUE to advance.

For those against EV’s, and cling to fossil fuels…you are equivalent to those that wouldn’t advance to the horseless carriage back in the day.

Anything that allows us to burn less fossil fuels and advance in technology is a good thing. As we progress, the technology always gets better and better. Stop clinging to archaic technology and look towards more modern advances.

[GATORBILL66]

Are you people even serious? The daily mail is in the same category of tabloid journalism as the National Enquirer. No wonder we have so many ill informed people in this country if this is the type of trash that they use as their source of information. Unbelievable.

Oh, so you are saying it is like CNN and MSNBC!

[OhioBuckeye]

Most people don’t know what makes a car run. There’s more bad things about EV’s than good. For instants, EV’s get No mileage on a charge, you won’t see charging stations along interstate or highways, all you’’ll see while you’re driving for a 1/2 hr. to an hr.is gas stations & if you do find a charging station you’ll be sitting there for at least an hr. or longer charging your EV if there’s no EV there being charged already, quick chargers just over heat your battery to possibly catch your EV on fire or over heat your battery to the point where in a couple of yrs. It’ll ruin your battery to the point you’ll have to spend 15 to over $20,000 to replace your battery, EV’s are expensive to buy, maintenance is expensive to maintain your EV, power outages are going to happen. So you better have a can of electricity or a generator that’s capable of charging your EV oh yea our president is going to get rid of gas stations. Oh I could go on & on. But the EV experts already have this already figured out. Not trying to be a know it all but I did work at a auto plant for 38 yrs. so I do & did hear about EV’s before most didn’t know what EV meant. EV’s have there purpose but not to drive 1,000 miles to see Billy or Susy!

[PugMom]

IMO Actually they are fair with no agendas. Attack everyone. More than I can say about most news sources.

i read the DailyMail every day, & agree with you.( they sometimes gets US stories before we even get to see them, with more details) poster must be confusing UKDM with WeeklyWorldNews

[Albany]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)
This ridiculous article has been debunked numerous times. Consider the source folks.

[Justputt]

So your source, The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, known for misinformation, is suppose to convince us that their propaganda is legitimate information. "Nice" try!

Clearly you haven't read the article. The Daily Mail put a click-bait headline on an article by scientists at VA Tech and other scientists. It's relatively objective and even leans towards EVs with some caveats.

[Byte1]

Regardless of present day science….technology will CONTINUE to advance.

For those against EV’s, and cling to fossil fuels…you are equivalent to those that wouldn’t advance to the horseless carriage back in the day.

Anything that allows us to burn less fossil fuels and advance in technology is a good thing. As we progress, the technology always gets better and better. Stop clinging to archaic technology and look towards more modern advances.

So, those that were against the horseless carriage "back in the day" are equivalent to those that PROMOTE the same fossil fuel technology today? Your correlation seems a bit off and a bit of a contradiction. You seem to be saying that ICE "back in the day" was better for the environment than the horse(might be true, considering the flatulence) and now burning fossil fuel is a bad thing. I know what you meant, but your correlation is skewed.

[Caymus]

This ridiculous article has been debunked numerous times. Consider the source folks.

Then it should be easy for you to provide links to the "debunking".

[Nellmack]

Most people don’t know what makes a car run. There’s more bad things about EV’s than good. For instants, EV’s get No mileage on a charge, you won’t see charging stations along interstate or highways, all you’’ll see while you’re driving for a 1/2 hr. to an hr.is gas stations & if you do find a charging station you’ll be sitting there for at least an hr. or longer charging your EV if there’s no EV there being charged already, quick chargers just over heat your battery to possibly catch your EV on fire or over heat your battery to the point where in a couple of yrs. It’ll ruin your battery to the point you’ll have to spend 15 to over $20,000 to replace your battery, EV’s are expensive to buy, maintenance is expensive to maintain your EV, power outages are going to happen. So you better have a can of electricity or a generator that’s capable of charging your EV oh yea our president is going to get rid of gas stations. Oh I could go on & on. But the EV experts already have this already figured out. Not trying to be a know it all but I did work at a auto plant for 38 yrs. so I do & did hear about EV’s before most didn’t know what EV meant. EV’s have there purpose but not to drive 1,000 miles to see Billy or Susy!

I've been driving my EV for 9.4 years and from my experience I'm saying this post contains a lot of incorrect statements. I don't have time, nor to I care to correct them.

[Birdrm]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)

I really thought this was a real comparison between EV and ICE vehicles. I believe that lets say for 100 miles on the road the ICE vehicle will pollute more than the EV. The argument against EV vehicles is first the manufacturing of EV's is much worse on the environment than ICE vehicles. Secondly, the charging of EVs currently is using electricity produced by fossil fuels.

[morchol]

The Daily Mail has proven it is better at journalism than most USA rags!

[biker1]

Most people miss the point. You use less energy generating electricity in a power plant , transmitting the power over high voltage transmission lines, recharging batteries, and using the electricity to provide motion in an EV than burning gasoline in an ICE car. The difference is a factor of 2-3x. The reason for this is that electricity generation, particularly the new generation of natural gas power plants (40% of our electricity comes from natural gas), is very efficient and the losses with high voltage transmission lines is very low. ICE cars are very inefficient in terms of how much of the energy in a gallon of gasoline is converted into motion. Electric motors in EVs convert a high percentage of the electrical energy in the battery to motion. You can also avoid the inefficiencies of having to transport gasoline to filling stations. While they take more energy to manufacture, if they are kept long enough there is a net energy savings. I believe the rational for EVs is that they use less energy.

I really thought this was a real comparison between EV and ICE vehicles. I believe that lets say for 100 miles on the road the ICE vehicle will pollute more than the EV. The argument against EV vehicles is first the manufacturing of EV's is much worse on the environment than ICE vehicles. Secondly, the charging of EVs currently is using electricity produced by fossil fuels.

[PurePeach]

Interesting articles. EVs produce more particles from tire wear than gasoline engines produce in exhaust. Okay, but how do the particles from EVs compare to particles from cars with gasoline engines? I get 40K miles from my tires, if EVs produce 400 times the particles that must mean 400 times the wear and so they should last 400 times less or about 100 miles. I don't hear many people talking about changing their EV tires every 400 miles.

The article mentions "particulate matter (air pollution)" several times yet then goes on to say "the majority of particulate emissions released from the tire go directly into the soil and water, while exhaust negatively affects the air quality." It doesn't seem like air pollution if it doesn't go into the air.

So a tires to exhaust comparison? A soil and water pollution to air pollution comparison? An apples to oranges comparison?

The headline is impressive, the data... not so much (at least the way this article presented it).

It will be interesting to read the study.

You forgot to mention the pollution from battery manufacturing and disposal after they die. :spoken:

[ElDiabloJoe]

Well, if you don't like or trust or utilize the UK's Daily Mail (a foreign news source for those of you so preferring), then perhaps the Wall Street Journal is more in your wheelhouse?

wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-cars-emit-more-soot-california-ban-gas-powered-vehicles-521b29e3)

[Justputt]

Most people miss the point. You use less energy generating electricity in a power plant , transmitting the power over high voltage transmission lines, recharging batteries, and using the electricity to provide motion in an EV than burning gasoline in an ICE car. The difference is a factor of 2-3x. The reason for this is that electricity generation, particularly the new generation of natural gas power plants (40% of our electricity comes from natural gas), is very efficient and the losses with high voltage transmission lines is very low. ICE cars are very inefficient in terms of how much of the energy in a gallon of gasoline is converted into motion. Electric motors in EVs convert a high percentage of the electrical energy in the battery to motion. You can also avoid the inefficiencies of having to transport gasoline to filling stations. While they take more energy to manufacture, if they are kept long enough there is a net energy savings. I believe the rational for EVs is that they use less energy.

Line losses are NOT very low! Attention Required! | Cloudflare (https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission-lines-1)

[Two Bills]

Oh, so you are saying it is like CNN and MSNBC!

Sometimes, when they get the bit between their teeth, it's Fox on steroids!

[Vickim]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)
They sold us on how great plastics were too ! Now micro plastics in every body of water on the planet.

[biker1]

5%, perhaps more depending on what you include. Regardless, it is small compared to ICE engine efficiencies.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3)

Line losses are NOT very low! Attention Required! | Cloudflare (https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission-lines-1)

[Topspinmo]

This ridiculous article has been debunked numerous times. Consider the source folks.

We’ll post some sites then to back up your claim and not from EV manufacturers.

[Topspinmo]

So, those that were against the horseless carriage "back in the day" are equivalent to those that PROMOTE the same fossil fuel technology today? Your correlation seems a bit off and a bit of a contradiction. You seem to be saying that ICE "back in the day" was better for the environment than the horse(might be true, considering the flatulence) and now burning fossil fuel is a bad thing. I know what you meant, but your correlation is skewed.

EVs are at same level as electric horseless carriages back in 1900. They just made them more fancy and expensive.

[Topspinmo]

The single motor Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus weighs in at 3,582 lbs.
The other two dual-motor Model 3 trims, Long Range and Performance, both weigh in at 4,065 lbs.
Curb weight of a Toyota Camry is 3580 lbs.
I drive a M3LR and after 20,000 miles tire wear is normal. Plenty of tread for at least another 20k.
What a POC article. More lies about EVs. The truth is it’s the best car we have owned. We did not buy it due to climate change. We bought it because it is highly efficient torque beast that blows away antiquated inefficient ICE vehicles.

I wonder when 737 going to have EV motors?

[jimjamuser]

Great, now you've done it!

That post is sure to draw out 2 of my "favorite" posters and their global warming fantasy tirade. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Ask and thee shall receive. Eagles are my favorite football team. This is an example of a subject with some HALF TRUTHS sprinkled in and then an ERRONEOUS conclusion is drawn. It is certainly true that small particles are given off when ANY 2 surfaces rub together. If you rub a metal file over a wood surface, you get saw dust. If the metal file was fine enough, you MIGHT (?) get invisible particles. Now the stretch of the truth occurs when they say that invisible tire and brake particles are going to hurt human lungs. And it would be true that the heavier the vehicle the more of these invisible particles would be sent out.
..........Now, one big "curve ball" to what was said in the article is that the 18 wheeler trucks that are traveling EVERY highway would have more tires and brakes and would be more than 10 times heavier than any known Electric car, truck or E-Golf Cart. So if these invisible emitted particles were killing people by injuring their lungs, then ALL the people at TRUCK STOPS, and truck drivers would be LONG dead from lung cancer.

[Justputt]

Ask and thee shall receive. Eagles are my favorite football team. This is an example of a subject with some HALF TRUTHS sprinkled in and then an ERRONEOUS conclusion is drawn. It is certainly true that small particles are given off when ANY 2 surfaces rub together. If you rub a metal file over a wood surface, you get saw dust. If the metal file was fine enough, you MIGHT (?) get invisible particles. Now the stretch of the truth occurs when they say that invisible tire and brake particles are going to hurt human lungs. And it would be true that the heavier the vehicle the more of these invisible particles would be sent out.
..........Now, one big "curve ball" to what was said in the article is that the 18 wheeler trucks that are traveling EVERY highway would have more tires and brakes and would be more than 10 times heavier than any known Electric car, truck or E-Golf Cart. So if these invisible emitted particles were killing people by injuring their lungs, then ALL the people at TRUCK STOPS, and truck drivers would be LONG dead from lung cancer.

AGAIN, if you read the article, it isn't slanted against EVs and only makes the point that HEAVIER vehicles (ICE or EV) suffer the same issue with tire and break particles!! EV only factors in because on average they are heavier. I don't think ANYONE makes a cancer claim against plastics in the article, so that's a straw argument.

[jimjamuser]

There are some other 1/2 truths in that article in that disreputable publication. Namely.....gravity needs to be considered. Small particles given off by brake linings and tire particles will fall down on some road somewhere and rain will wash them away to sewers and eventually into the MUD bottoms of rivers, where they would soon be rendered inert. Now, another 1/2 truth would be that an E-automobile like a Tesla would weigh some LARGE amount compared with a gas-guzzling vehicle like a Cadillac. Another factor is that in the NEAR future battery weights will be coming down. Another factor is that E-motors move in a circle as opposed to up and down piston movement and THEREFORE require only about 1/3 of the parts as compared to a gas engine. Therefore, less parts need to be shipped to the vehicle factory, which would easily give the E-vehicle an edge in producing less particle pollution (even IF that theory were true, which it isn't)
.........Not for the REAL truth. The gasoline engine helps America's international enemies. The gasoline engine produces out of its exhaust pipe a CO2 gas which RISES (as opposed to those small stupid particles which fall) and the CO2 becomes TRAPPED in the upper atmosphere and has been reflecting HEAT back to the Earth in large quantities in the last 11 or so years. This HEAT has caused many PROBLEMS one of which is HEATED oceans WHICH are spawning more hurricanes of greater intensity.
.......Also note......The worldwide gas and oil conglomerates have a vested PROFIT interest in PREVENTING the widespread ADOPTION of ELECTRIC vehicles. They are DESPERATE to prevent them!!!!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

AGAIN, if you read the article, it isn't slanted against EVs and only makes the point that HEAVIER vehicles (ICE or EV) suffer the same issue with tire and break particles!! EV only factors in because on average they are heavier. I don't think ANYONE makes a cancer claim against plastics in the article, so that's a straw argument.
OK I will take that as a good comment. With the tiny addition that brake is spelled brake.

[jimjamuser]

…………AND We’re Off!

While I have no intention of buying an EV, my reasons have nothing to do with loaded tabloids like The Daily News. I like my dependable old Accord and have no need to buy a car that costs more than my first house — and that would be ANY car these days.

But when did Americans lose the ability to think for themselves, to read between the lines, to look deep for the motive behind what is very loosely called news, to NEVER fall for the old divide-and-conquer game, and to make decisions based on the pros and cons…….

Speaking of cons, by now we all should know that the old “Do your own research” pukefest of a line we have been hearing for years simply means that you can go online and find lots of articles to agree with your own narrow opinion.

You can then bask in your own echo chamber and never have to bother to look any further or to welcome an exchange of ideas.

Maybe branch out, expand horizons, and instead of clinging to such sources as The Daily News, tune in to The Daily Show, but only on Monday nights, 11 PM, Comedy Central because Jon Stewart has returned — but he works only on Mondays.

If you think you might like good satire instead of tabloid hype style, you might end up laughing and having a good time in my echo chamber.

Boomer
Agreed. Monday's Daily Show is excellent. learn things and be entertained. It is a win-win.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Unrelated.....but so sad to see iconic vehicles like the Ford Mustang go the EV route. I mean isn’t the whole enjoyment of a ‘stang’ is starting her up and hearing the 351 Cleveland?!
You turn on a current model and you hear....nothing.

[Topspinmo]

Unrelated.....but so sad to see iconic vehicles like the Ford Mustang go the EV route. I mean isn’t the whole enjoyment of a ‘stang’ is starting her up and hearing the 351 Cleveland?!
You turn on a current model and you hear....nothing.

EV mustang looks nothing like the King of street coyote ICE vehicles.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Unrelated.....but so sad to see iconic vehicles like the Ford Mustang go the EV route. I mean isn’t the whole enjoyment of a ‘stang’ is starting her up and hearing the 351 Cleveland?!
You turn on a current model and you hear....nothing.
Love the Dropkick Murphys.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Yup! Good taste in music sir. This is their annual ‘super bowl’ coming up (St. Patrick’s Day) multiple shows....unfortunately, all in Boston (unless you’re in Boston of course that weekend)

[JMintzer]

So, those that were against the horseless carriage "back in the day" are equivalent to those that PROMOTE the same fossil fuel technology today? Your correlation seems a bit off and a bit of a contradiction. You seem to be saying that ICE "back in the day" was better for the environment than the horse(might be true, considering the flatulence) and now burning fossil fuel is a bad thing. I know what you meant, but your correlation is skewed.

And don't forget, the first "horseless carriage" was an EV. The EV was invented BEFORE the ICE powered cars...

So, the BETTER technology WAS the ICE vehicle, since it replaced the EV...

[Slapnut]

I've read where it uses as much emissions to mine the ingredients for the electric car as a vehicle that has 150,000 miles of road use. Not to forget that China is the country that has the resources and gets rich off of our government

[Donegalkid]

The single motor Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus weighs in at 3,582 lbs.
The other two dual-motor Model 3 trims, Long Range and Performance, both weigh in at 4,065 lbs.
Curb weight of a Toyota Camry is 3580 lbs.
I drive a M3LR and after 20,000 miles tire wear is normal. Plenty of tread for at least another 20k.
What a POC article. More lies about EVs. The truth is it’s the best car we have owned. We did not buy it due to climate change. We bought it because it is highly efficient torque beast that blows away antiquated inefficient ICE vehicles.

Hmmm …. someone with some real facts, real life examples; not tabloid headlines. Well done. The tabloid article included references to an interesting study, however. Using the logic being proposed in the article (heavier vehicles burn tires faster and emit more pollution) many believers should also enthusiastically now argue AGAINST Americans buying heavier tire burning pickups and SUVs, and now argue in favor of buying lighter, smaller, gas powered cars, and certainly they would now need to lobby strenuously against the incredible proliferation of 100,000 pound eighteen wheelers on our major roadways and now also argue for increased rail subsidies to modernize US rail freight lines. More rail transport of freight and less heavy vehicle tire burners and polluters (?). Maybe a whole new generation of environmentalists will spring forth from the tabloid readers. Wow.

[BrianL99]

Everyone seems to forget the reality of EV market. No one wants them. Anyone who did, already bought one.

Dealerships can't sell them. Manufacturers can't make money with them. If it wasn't for federal subsidies, Tesla would have folded years ago. Hertz is dumping 20,000 EV's. EV's are one of the biggest frauds ever foisted on the public.

... & along comes little ol' Toyota. The envy of every auto manufacturer in the world and tells us what anyone with a brain has known for 15 years.

If you want to replace ICE vehicles, hybrids are the only way to go. Not that Toyota knows much about cars, right?


Toyota says it would rather buy credits than ‘waste’ money on EVs | Electrek (https://electrek.co/2024/03/01/toyota-says-it-would-rather-buy-credits-than-waste-money-on-evs/) (Interview with the CEO of Toyota, for Automotive News, 3/1/24)

[Shipping up to Boston]

Everyone seems to forget the reality of EV market. No one wants them. Anyone who did, already bought one.

Dealerships can't sell them. Manufacturers can't make money with them. If it wasn't for federal subsidies, Tesla would have folded years ago. Hertz is dumping 20,000 EV's. EV's are one of the biggest frauds ever foisted on the public.

... & along comes little ol' Toyota. The envy of every auto manufacturer in the world and tells us what anyone with a brain has known for 15 years.

If you want to replace ICE vehicles, hybrids are the only way to go. Not that Toyota knows much about cars, right?


Toyota says it would rather buy credits than ‘waste’ money on EVs | Electrek (https://electrek.co/2024/03/01/toyota-says-it-would-rather-buy-credits-than-waste-money-on-evs/) (Interview with the CEO of Toyota, for Automotive News, 3/1/24)

I actually agree with this. The mandates to go all EV at some point in the future will be disastrous. Our grids can’t even handle ‘normal’ consumption. Further, there will be graveyards for all these EV corpses lining our landscapes. I think a fair resolve is to own a EV/hybrid and have a gas fueled vehicle as a back up.

[dhdallas]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)

Tabloid garbage nonsense made for the old dinosaurs that hate change & everything electric.

[bopat]

I wonder why we don't have more gasoline powered appliances and devices if they're so efficient and clean like gas powered cars and trucks.

I can think of a few:
Gasoline powered cell phone! Just fill 'er up, lasts for a week!
Gas powered flashlight! Never needs charging!

And so clean! Maybe a gasoline powered air filter! Or, hey, better yet, a gasoline powered washing machine! Dump your clothes in, they come out sparkly clean and meadow fresh!

How about a gasoline powered refrigerator! Nothing better than gasoline and a catalytic converter next to your food! Yum!

[Bealman]

I have three vehicles and each has it's purpose. F250 to pull things, a 68 Mustang for Sunday drives when it is finished being restored, and a Mache to have some sporty fun. We bought the Mache for fun and transportation, not to save the planet. Nothing man-made will save the planet. Just take care of the planet the way one sees fit. It was great in the day when we could debate things openly and without ridicule. And then, when we were done debating we could still be friends. Ah, for those days!

[Bealman]

I've read where it uses as much emissions to mine the ingredients for the electric car as a vehicle that has 150,000 miles of road use. Not to forget that China is the country that has the resources and gets rich off of our government

You are incorrect on China, they have less resources than we do. We are just afraid of the political winds to open mines in our own country.
Top six countries with the largest lithium reserves in the world (https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/six-largest-lithium-reserves-world/)

[MrChip72]

Everyone seems to forget the reality of EV market. No one wants them. Anyone who did, already bought one.


Nonsense. EV's have tripled in sales in 3 years. How many other things have tripled in sales in that timeframe?

Source:

U.S. electric vehicle sales soar into ‘24 - International Council on Clean Transportation (https://theicct.org/us-ev-sales-soar-into-24-jan24/#:~:text=Since%20Q3%202021%2C%20EV%20sales,than%20 10%25%20in%20Q3%202023).


Dealerships can't sell them.

Manufacturers can't make money with them.


Many EV companies like Tesla don't have dealerships. They have zero.

Telsa made $14.3 billion in profit in 2023.

[Bealman]

Everyone seems to forget the reality of EV market. No one wants them. Anyone who did, already bought one.

Dealerships can't sell them. Manufacturers can't make money with them. If it wasn't for federal subsidies, Tesla would have folded years ago. Hertz is dumping 20,000 EV's. EV's are one of the biggest frauds ever foisted on the public.

... & along comes little ol' Toyota. The envy of every auto manufacturer in the world and tells us what anyone with a brain has known for 15 years.

If you want to replace ICE vehicles, hybrids are the only way to go. Not that Toyota knows much about cars, right?


Toyota says it would rather buy credits than ‘waste’ money on EVs | Electrek (https://electrek.co/2024/03/01/toyota-says-it-would-rather-buy-credits-than-waste-money-on-evs/) (Interview with the CEO of Toyota, for Automotive News, 3/1/24)

Oil industry isn't subsidized? Hmmm...EV's are not the only thing subsidized. Stop eating food, it is subsidized. Look around, there are lots of subsidized things around!

[Bealman]

Most people don’t know what makes a car run. There’s more bad things about EV’s than good. For instants, EV’s get No mileage on a charge, you won’t see charging stations along interstate or highways, all you’’ll see while you’re driving for a 1/2 hr. to an hr.is gas stations & if you do find a charging station you’ll be sitting there for at least an hr. or longer charging your EV if there’s no EV there being charged already, quick chargers just over heat your battery to possibly catch your EV on fire or over heat your battery to the point where in a couple of yrs. It’ll ruin your battery to the point you’ll have to spend 15 to over $20,000 to replace your battery, EV’s are expensive to buy, maintenance is expensive to maintain your EV, power outages are going to happen. So you better have a can of electricity or a generator that’s capable of charging your EV oh yea our president is going to get rid of gas stations. Oh I could go on & on. But the EV experts already have this already figured out. Not trying to be a know it all but I did work at a auto plant for 38 yrs. so I do & did hear about EV’s before most didn’t know what EV meant. EV’s have there purpose but not to drive 1,000 miles to see Billy or Susy!

Really on the 1,000 mile trip? Have done them in our Mache and loved every minute of it. Time to stop was about as long as it takes to get gas, take a leak, get a drink or snack and be on my way. There are plenty of charge stations. I can drive further than when my SO needs to use the facilities. Others can tell the experience one has by their use of the tools before them.

[Bealman]

Unrelated.....but so sad to see iconic vehicles like the Ford Mustang go the EV route. I mean isn’t the whole enjoyment of a ‘stang’ is starting her up and hearing the 351 Cleveland?!
You turn on a current model and you hear....nothing.

I am not sad, I love my Mache. It will clean the 351 Cleveland away. I don't need sound to know something is fast(supposedly). The Mache is not taking away the Mustang moniker from the gas. It is being used to supplement the Mustang line up.

[Bealman]

Most people don’t know what makes a car run. There’s more bad things about EV’s than good. For instants, EV’s get No mileage on a charge, you won’t see charging stations along interstate or highways, all you’’ll see while you’re driving for a 1/2 hr. to an hr.is gas stations & if you do find a charging station you’ll be sitting there for at least an hr. or longer charging your EV if there’s no EV there being charged already, quick chargers just over heat your battery to possibly catch your EV on fire or over heat your battery to the point where in a couple of yrs. It’ll ruin your battery to the point you’ll have to spend 15 to over $20,000 to replace your battery, EV’s are expensive to buy, maintenance is expensive to maintain your EV, power outages are going to happen. So you better have a can of electricity or a generator that’s capable of charging your EV oh yea our president is going to get rid of gas stations. Oh I could go on & on. But the EV experts already have this already figured out. Not trying to be a know it all but I did work at a auto plant for 38 yrs. so I do & did hear about EV’s before most didn’t know what EV meant. EV’s have there purpose but not to drive 1,000 miles to see Billy or Susy!

History of the electric car.
Access to this page has been denied (https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g43480930/history-of-electric-cars/)

You been around awhile, I see, Mr. osu.

[Shipping up to Boston]

I am not sad, I love my Mache. It will clean the 351 Cleveland away. I don't need sound to know something is fast(supposedly). The Mache is not taking away the Mustang moniker from the gas. It is being used to supplement the Mustang line up.

The point is/was....I’m not advocating for eradication of the EV....my post was about balance. You actually agreed with my premise of having the ability to choose one over the other or own both. Not be force fed one by mandate. In fairness, nobody goes to a car show and lines up to check the battery under the hood of a Mache. There is nothing iconic about an EV and since you’re restoring a Mustang, you would understand the difference here.

[MorTech]

Pollute what exactly? FYI - Carbon Dioxide is the exact opposite of a pollutant.

[GizmoWhiskers]

Most folks, IMHO, either have NO clue about what you write, or, will conclude you are a tin foil hat-wearing "conspiracy theorist" because so many are clueless! I agree with everything you wrote except your statement "The haze over The Villages is air plane produced". These chemtrails are delivered into the atmosphere by airplanes but not produced by them. Great response and right on the money. The only thing I would add is that these heavy, toxic metals, i.e. chemtrails also eventually settle onto the soil and, most likely become systemic in many agricultural plants, so eat up and breathe in folks - your government is here to help :crap2:

P..s. Bill Gates and Harvard are heavily involved in this nefarious activity (to benefit mankind, of course :eek:)

Fred
Watch a good heavy laiden day in The Villages.

They are already developing seeds that are aluminum soil and toxic soil resistent.

Cloned gene being used to develop aluminum tolerant crops, Kochian says at AAAS | Cornell Chronicle (https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2010/02/aaas-meeting-cloned-sorghum-aluminum-tolerant#:~:text=Cornell%20researcher%20Leon%20Koc hian%2C%20in,a%20consequence%20of%20acidic%20soils ).

Thank you for not saying I am completely nuts. One day people will realize we breathe air and whoever owns the air controls the world. Gates will have controling food covered.

Research Dubai and weather control. They get it too. All I can say is look up.

[Two Bills]

Watch a good heavy laiden day in The Villages.

They are already developing seeds that are aluminum soil and toxic soil resistent.

Cloned gene being used to develop aluminum tolerant crops, Kochian says at AAAS | Cornell Chronicle (https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2010/02/aaas-meeting-cloned-sorghum-aluminum-tolerant#:~:text=Cornell%20researcher%20Leon%20Koc hian%2C%20in,a%20consequence%20of%20acidic%20soils ).

Thank you for not saying I am completely nuts. One day people will realize we breathe air and whoever owns the air controls the world. Gates will have controling food covered.

Research Dubai and weather control. They get it too. All I can say is look up.

The gene research is to enable plants to grow better in acidic soil, not toxic soil. A very big difference.
Many foods are GM to counter bugs and disease, nothing new there.
How you linked it to contrails in the sky, I haven't a clue.! :shrug:

[BrianL99]

Nonsense. EV's have tripled in sales in 3 years. How many other things have tripled in sales in that timeframe?



The Hula Hoop & Kool-Aid were overnight sensations. Yet now, nary a word is heard about either.

I have heard there's a hidden stash of Kool-Aid somewhere and folks can still buy it when they need a boost.

[Caymus]

Nonsense. EV's have tripled in sales in 3 years. How many other things have tripled in sales in that timeframe?

Source:

U.S. electric vehicle sales soar into ‘24 - International Council on Clean Transportation (https://theicct.org/us-ev-sales-soar-into-24-jan24/#:~:text=Since%20Q3%202021%2C%20EV%20sales,than%20 10%25%20in%20Q3%202023).


Many EV companies like Tesla don't have dealerships. They have zero.

Telsa made $14.3 billion in profit in 2023.

What would the sales be without the massive government subsidies?

[rsmurano]

According to multiple sources, consumer reports states it costs .50 cents a mile to operate a Prius and fueleconomy.gov states the Prius costs .94 cents a mile operating the first 25 miles and $1.51 per mile after that.
Also the Prius will have to replace the hybrid battery every 8-10 years at a cost up to $6000. Go online and people are wondering if it’s worth the expense at that time to replace the battery. Gas cars, most imports can go hundreds of thousands of miles without a rebuild and diesel cars, over 500,0000 miles.
Most EV/hybrid owners don’t include future expenses in their total cost of ownership nor do they care that every battery is toxic waste and polluting the earth when disposing of these batteries. We can also talk about the earths resources it takes to make a hybrid battery which is also destroying the planet.

[Bill14564]

According to multiple sources, consumer reports states it costs .50 cents a mile to operate a Prius and fueleconomy.gov states the Prius costs .94 cents a mile operating the first 25 miles and $1.51 per mile after that.
Also the Prius will have to replace the hybrid battery every 8-10 years at a cost up to $6000. Go online and people are wondering if it’s worth the expense at that time to replace the battery. Gas cars, most imports can go hundreds of thousands of miles without a rebuild and diesel cars, over 500,0000 miles.
Most EV/hybrid owners don’t include future expenses in their total cost of ownership nor do they care that every battery is toxic waste and polluting the earth when disposing of these batteries. We can also talk about the earths resources it takes to make a hybrid battery which is also destroying the planet.

I put over 160,000 miles in six years on each of two Prius (12 years total). No battery changes required and I sure as did not pay anything close to $80,000 to operate them! Regular oil changes, just like any gasoline engine, and tires every 60,000 miles. I even saved money on brake pads and disks due to the regenerative braking.

The rest of those claims have been thoroughly disputed/debunked in multiple other threads.

[rsmurano]

I was responding to someone who stated it cost them .02 cents a mile to operate their Prius which we all know is not true. I didn’t make up the websites and I will believe these websites over somebody claiming .02 cents a mile cost for any car. It cost more than .02 to operate a pedal bike, and much higher cost for an electric bike.

Overall cost, polluting the earth on making and disposing of lithium batteries, and always needing to find a place to charge your EV/golf cart, that’s why I will always buy for the foreseeable future gas cars and golf carts. Hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles look promising but just like in the EV world, the infrastructure isn’t in place nor will it be in the upcoming decades to support a 100% EV environment. IMO!

[dtennent]

Here is a link to an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which covers a lot of the discussion here. The reading is pretty clear so you don’t need a Ph.D to understand it.

Just a moment... (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220923120)

[BrianL99]

What would the sales be without the massive government subsidies?

Tesla would have been out of business, years ago.

As it is, I'm not sure how they stay in business now, given the vehicles they produce. To say nothing of how ugly they are, the quality, fit & finish on those things, is horrible.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Tesla would have been out of business, years ago.

As it is, I'm not sure how they stay in business now, given the vehicles they produce. To say nothing of how ugly they are, the quality, fit & finish on those things, is horrible.

No offense intended here....but great point. Why is the Prius and in this case the Tesla so aesthetically unpleasing?

[Bill14564]

No offense intended here....but great point. Why is the Prius and in this case the Tesla so aesthetically unpleasing?

I don’t find them unpleasing so some of it is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect the design may have a lot to do with aerodynamics.

[Vermilion Villager]

I don't care about the political agenda that pushes EVs. I have a Toyota Prius that gets 66 MPG and don't care about the price of gas. Some would say that the Green New Deal is dumb as a box of rocks but that would be an insult to the box of rocks. I am waiting to see how those high speed railroads are going to be built across the ocean.
Hmmmm......So you have a Prius that gets 66 miles per gallon?!?? I'd sure like to see that! I have two of them and I don't get that kind of mileage.

[Bay Kid]

What would the sales be without the massive government subsidies?

Pushing what they want by taking money from 1 and reward others for doing what they want. You wouldn't see many EVs without a reward to purchase.

[Proveone]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)
Your source is a British tabloid, with very low credibility on accurate information - The Daily Mail. Do some legitimate research before you post misinformation. "Nice" try. I laughed!!

[jimjamuser]

I've read where it uses as much emissions to mine the ingredients for the electric car as a vehicle that has 150,000 miles of road use. Not to forget that China is the country that has the resources and gets rich off of our government
The E-vehicle engine has about 60% less parts than a gasoline engine so it is LOGICAL that the E-vehicle production would use LESS emissions from the manufacturing of those parts. The important thing about emissions is that an E-vehicle emits ZERO. And just ask yourself if it is easier to control emissions from one STATIONARY electrical generating plant or the thousands of CO2 emitting tailpipes on the MOVING gasoline cars. I would say that a STATIONARY generating plant wins that battle because it has all the advantages over a moving source of pollution.
.......As far as battery production and lithium goes, people are finding lithium in places other than China. Also, battery technology will NOT stand still, they will become lighter and allow the E-vehicle to have longer range.
.........Also, as far as range anxiety goes. there are many makes of HYBRID vehicles. If anyone is concerned about RANGE, just buy a HYBRID...............PROBLEMO SOLVED!
...........Now, the final factor to consider is the PROPAGANDA factor. OBVIOUSLY. the oil and gasoline industry will FIGHT back against CHANGE. They will use PROPAGANDA and LIES about E-vehicles to slow down their adoption. Also, the US automobile does NOT want to CHANGE RAPIDLY. That's why a SMALL auto company like Tesla was able to beat the OLD US car industry to the E-vehicle revolution.

[Caymus]

I wonder if the left's attack on Tesla will increase pollution at the factory.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/elon-musk-s-german-tesla-plant-suffers-close-to-1-billion-in-damages-after-attack-by-the-dumbest-eco-terrorists-on-earth/ar-BB1jqywI?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=407d02a6b7f54008b5fa4b258b66c2e0&ei=23

[Shipping up to Boston]

[QUOTE=Caymus;2308273]I wonder if the left's attack on Tesla will increase pollution at the factory.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/elon-musk-s-german-tesla-plant-suffers-close-to-1-billion-in-damages-after-attack-by-the-dumbest-eco-terrorists-on-earth/ar-BB1jqywI?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=407d02a6b7f54008b5fa4b258b66c2e0&ei=23[/QUOTE

I’m so confused, I thought ‘the left’ promotes EV and renewable energy? I think the attack you speak of could be aimed at Elon Musk and his politics in general. The guy is a visionary. I mean he pushed out tens of thousands of flame throwers a few years ago, sold them out in hours and broke the internet. Now back to our mutual admiration of fossil fueled classics!

[BrianL99]

No offense intended here....but great point. Why is the Prius and in this case the Tesla so aesthetically unpleasing?

Just an observation, based on nothing more than being old and having been around the block a few times.

The folks that buy those cars, are "non-conformist" in the worst sense of the world. They think they're "special" and "cutting edge". They don't want to look like everyone else, nor be associated with the mundane or status quo (per their version of the world). They'd rather drive an ugly car, with inferior quality and design, to differentiate themselves from the masses who "kowtow to THE man".

The problem with "minorities" of any sort (not an intended racial slur or anything like that, "minority" in the true sense of the word), is they all seem to adopt some outward, defining mode of dress, buying habits or social behavior, to advertise their non-conformance. In the case of Tesla, they buy ugly cars of the new Mustang. Who of our age, would ever envision a Ford Mustang, that looks anything like the new EV Mustang?

[jimjamuser]

Hmmm …. someone with some real facts, real life examples; not tabloid headlines. Well done. The tabloid article included references to an interesting study, however. Using the logic being proposed in the article (heavier vehicles burn tires faster and emit more pollution) many believers should also enthusiastically now argue AGAINST Americans buying heavier tire burning pickups and SUVs, and now argue in favor of buying lighter, smaller, gas powered cars, and certainly they would now need to lobby strenuously against the incredible proliferation of 100,000 pound eighteen wheelers on our major roadways and now also argue for increased rail subsidies to modernize US rail freight lines. More rail transport of freight and less heavy vehicle tire burners and polluters (?). Maybe a whole new generation of environmentalists will spring forth from the tabloid readers. Wow.
I agree. Especially about the improved railroad lines. Japan can produce high speed rail. Maybe the US needs to think ahead to that future. But, the US should NOT include the city of New York and other coastal cities like Miami and others on the East Coast because they will LIKELY be underwater by 2090. Take CLIMATE SCIENCE into consideration when making Federal decisions.

[jimjamuser]

I wonder why we don't have more gasoline powered appliances and devices if they're so efficient and clean like gas powered cars and trucks.

I can think of a few:
Gasoline powered cell phone! Just fill 'er up, lasts for a week!
Gas powered flashlight! Never needs charging!

And so clean! Maybe a gasoline powered air filter! Or, hey, better yet, a gasoline powered washing machine! Dump your clothes in, they come out sparkly clean and meadow fresh!

How about a gasoline powered refrigerator! Nothing better than gasoline and a catalytic converter next to your food! Yum!
Great humor! And proves a point better than long dialog like I use!

[jimjamuser]

I have three vehicles and each has it's purpose. F250 to pull things, a 68 Mustang for Sunday drives when it is finished being restored, and a Mache to have some sporty fun. We bought the Mache for fun and transportation, not to save the planet. Nothing man-made will save the planet. Just take care of the planet the way one sees fit. It was great in the day when we could debate things openly and without ridicule. And then, when we were done debating we could still be friends. Ah, for those days!
Very correct about the good old days (1975 and earlier) when people of different views could debate and then be friends because we were all Americans.........and here comes the BIG point.........MOST all Americans THEN were the SAME financially. Most of us (The US) were middle class then (before 1975). What happened after that????? Partial answer - outsourcing and changing of the tax code to benefit the WEALTHY.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Very correct about the good old days (1975 and earlier) when people of different views could debate and then be friends because we were all Americans.........and here comes the BIG point.........MOST all Americans THEN were the SAME financially. Most of us (The US) were middle class then (before 1975). What happened after that????? Partial answer - outsourcing and changing of the tax code to benefit the WEALTHY.

Ah yes...when are ancestors came through Ellis Island, were sponsored and had jobs waiting for them in the cities and towns in which they resided. True manufacturing positions that were designed for a 30 year career with healthcare and pensions. Those earnings usually spent in those same communities further giving stability to its residents and commercial base. A guy can dream can’t he? Now where is my Amazon package!

[Topspinmo]

Very correct about the good old days (1975 and earlier) when people of different views could debate and then be friends because we were all Americans.........and here comes the BIG point.........MOST all Americans THEN were the SAME financially. Most of us (The US) were middle class then (before 1975). What happened after that????? Partial answer - outsourcing and changing of the tax code to benefit the WEALTHY.

No outsourcing and moving companies overseas or south of border putting Americans out of work factory blue collar work and making CEOs and Wall Street investors rich. That’s what wiped out middle class then. The new wipe out will be AI.

[kingofbeer]

Well, here's my shocked face :-|. Wait, ya mean there's been an agenda being pushed all these years? Nooooo, I don't believe that.

Sorry, it's not a FoxNews link, you can't just dismiss it because you don't like the source (ostrich syndrome).

Electric cars release MORE toxic emissions than gas-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment, finds shock report | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13155147/ev-pollution-worse-exhaust-emissions-study.html)
I don't believe much in this article. The problem that I see with electric vehicles is the limited range for long trips.

[Topspinmo]

I wonder why we don't have more gasoline powered appliances and devices if they're so efficient and clean like gas powered cars and trucks.

I can think of a few:
Gasoline powered cell phone! Just fill 'er up, lasts for a week!
Gas powered flashlight! Never needs charging!

And so clean! Maybe a gasoline powered air filter! Or, hey, better yet, a gasoline powered washing machine! Dump your clothes in, they come out sparkly clean and meadow fresh!

How about a gasoline powered refrigerator! Nothing better than gasoline and a catalytic converter next to your food! Yum!

We do everything you mentioned was made by crud oil gasoline just one of by products. Without fossil fuels NONE of them would be possible. We still be rubbing two sticks together and using jaw bone of Ashe.

[jimjamuser]

Pollute what exactly? FYI - Carbon Dioxide is the exact opposite of a pollutant.
Carbon dioxide CO2 was fine throughout most of human history. But, it has become excessive - more than can be absorbed by trees and plants. We can see trees bulldozed up here locally. The Brazilian rain forest of the Amazon has been cut down for farming. Most of this UNBALANCE has expressed itself in the last 15 years because not CO2 BUT EXCESS CO2 has gotten into the ocean and is killing the Coral REEFS. And the excess CO2 has settled around the upper atmosphere and REFLECTED HEAT back to the Earth. This keeps causing greater and greater hurricanes each year. This can be PROVEN right NOW by anybody willing to read that the Golf of Mexico is already (before summer even) at record temperatures. AND also, is the whole WORLD heating up.
.........South America's heating up is causing ALL the movement of people from Venezuela and other South American countries northward to the US. This will not stop because the planet's population is spiking upward right NOW. That means more EXCESS CO2 coming out of gasoline engine exhaust.

[Caymus]

Carbon dioxide CO2 was fine throughout most of human history. But, it has become excessive - more than can be absorbed by trees and plants. We can see trees bulldozed up here locally. The Brazilian rain forest of the Amazon has been cut down for farming. Most of this UNBALANCE has expressed itself in the last 15 years because not CO2 BUT EXCESS CO2 has gotten into the ocean and is killing the Coral REEFS. And the excess CO2 has settled around the upper atmosphere and REFLECTED HEAT back to the Earth. This keeps causing greater and greater hurricanes each year. This can be PROVEN right NOW by anybody willing to read that the Golf of Mexico is already (before summer even) at record temperatures. AND also, is the whole WORLD heating up.
.........South America's heating up is causing ALL the movement of people from Venezuela and other South American countries northward to the US. This will not stop because the planet's population is spiking upward right NOW. That means more EXCESS CO2 coming out of gasoline engine exhaust.

.... and for EV minerals

Growth of electric vehicles endangering rain forests (https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/growth-of-electric-vehicles-endangering-rain-forests-127965765516)

[Shipping up to Boston]

.... and for EV minerals

Growth of electric vehicles endangering rain forests (https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/growth-of-electric-vehicles-endangering-rain-forests-127965765516)

No matter where we all stand on this thread....I’m getting depressed by the thought of all of this producing even more bike lanes across our country. Ugh

[LittleZee]

Perhaps we should make an attempt to broaden the spectrum of our understanding of the complex yet positive impact that EV replacement is having on our environments and move of the puerile commentary such as "My MACHE gives me all the vroom, vroom I want without the gurgling muffler sound" or "My Prius drives on a full tank to New York and back".
The nuance and sophistication of appropriate environment modelling goes well beyond some of the shallow opinions shared here on TV pages.

Just a moment... (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220923120)

[JRcorvette]

It is the truth. The production of batteries pollutes 100x more than the exhaust from any gas vehicle. You are being down a road with untruths.

[LittleZee]

Just a moment... (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220923120)

[Topspinmo]

Perhaps we should make an attempt to broaden the spectrum of our understanding of the complex yet positive impact that EV replacement is having on our environments and move of the puerile commentary such as "My MACHE gives me all the vroom, vroom I want without the gurgling muffler sound" or "My Prius drives on a full tank to New York and back".
The nuance and sophistication of appropriate environment modelling goes well beyond some of the shallow opinions shared here on TV pages.

Just a moment... (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220923120)

2022 data little outdated?

As we speak EV sales are projected down EVERYWHERE.

J.D. Power lowers 2024 electric vehicle sales forecast (https://www.cbtnews.com/j-d-power-lowers-2024-electric-vehicle-sales-forecast/#:~:text=J.D.%20Power%20now%20forecasts%20U.S.,uni ts%20for%20the%20first%20time).

[Dusty_Star]

.. the Daily Mail.... This is the paper that launched the garbage about The Villages being a hotbed of STDs with beds full of swingers.

I think it was a minor Miami paper. All the others just picked it up off of the wires. Gleefully, yes. Also, the Miami paper was the only one to print the correction, when the true stats from the Florida Department of Heath were checked. I guess in the world of journalism, if a paper is not the originator, they don't have to print retractions or corrections. Also, if the Daily Mail claimed to be the first they undoubtedly meant in the U.K.

[biker1]

Sales will likely increase this year from last year but the rate of increase of sales will decrease (the second derivative of sales if you know what a derivative is).


2022 data little outdated?

As we speak EV sales are projected down EVERYWHERE.

J.D. Power lowers 2024 electric vehicle sales forecast (https://www.cbtnews.com/j-d-power-lowers-2024-electric-vehicle-sales-forecast/#:~:text=J.D.%20Power%20now%20forecasts%20U.S.,uni ts%20for%20the%20first%20time).

[Shipping up to Boston]

OK it may be scientifically INCORRECT to say that CO2 REFLECTS heat back. I use that as a shorthand for what is taking place. I have seen diagrams in science articles that show red arrows of HEAT going upward somewhere in the stratosphere and some of those arrows make it through the CO2 layer and go into space. That was all there was to the story 40 years ago. HEAT escaping into space, no problem. But with increased population and production of CO2 from the tailpipe of internal combustion engines, the upper layer started REFLECTING (or bending) HEAT radiation back to the earth. And as I stated there are PROOFS of this excess CO2........namely the Coral Reefs dying. Right now there are people making TRIPS to Coral Reefs because they know that in 20 or so years, they will all be dead. Another PROOF is that the Earth has been heating up for the last 11 or so years and causing greater hurricanes. Another PROOF is that right now the Gulf is at RECORD temperatures. Excess CO2 is NOT just in the upper atmosphere. It is in the oceans. The planet is warming.....another PROOF is that the glaciers like in France that is melting so fast that all skiing there is going away. Glaciers all over the planet are melting, which is more PROOF.
..........Now as far as Why people from South America and the whole globe are trying to enter the US southern border, I am sure that there are many motivations. At least one of the motivations that I have read about are farmers leaving because it has become too WARM to farm the crops that they are used to and it MUST BE too difficult to change. I REALLY don't care WHY they are coming, just that they ARE coming.
.........Most of my warnings have to do with IC engine vehicles that are causing Global Warming. And ANY quick research shows that Global warming is happening rapidly in the last 11 years. Just ask, "Why are the world's oceans rising?"

What country of origin did the ‘farmers’ that attacked the three NYPD officers come from in South America. Seriously, you all are making great arguments but let’s not conflate very separate topics