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 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

EV pollutes more than ICE??
 

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Line losses are NOT very low! Attention Required! | Cloudflare

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

They sold us on how great plastics were too ! Now micro plastics in every body of water on the planet.