EVs pollute more than gas vehicles!
 

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

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.

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.

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.

I only listen to Bernie.

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

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:

…………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

Beating a dead horse
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stolen
 

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

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?

Cloud Classification

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection | A SRM Geoengineering Climate Solution

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.

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.

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.

No emissions
 

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.

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.

Agree 1000000000%

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

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

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!

Say it with me “click bait”

Joe

"Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!"

https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/f...a7556219_1.gif

Unlike the slimes and compost?

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.

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

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.