You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars

[HitchHiker71]

Those are Gallup's results. They specifically asked if people were seriously considering buying electric cars. And here is another indication that the fad may be on the way out:

Interest in new electric cars slumps, figures show

Online vehicle marketplace Auto Trader said it recorded a 65% drop in inquiries for electric cars last month compared with January 2022, blaming the high prices of EVs.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Auto trader inquiries is just as bad at predicting trends as Gallup polls given it is primarily used for tracking inquiries for used car purchases - not new car purchases. Given most BEVs purchased in the EU, and specifically in the UK, are Tesla vehicles - and Tesla uses a direct purchase model - including pre-owned models - tracking BEV inquiries through third parties such as Autotrader isn’t going to be an accurate predictor of actual BEV purchase activity. The proof of this is quoted right in this same article toward the end, where, again based upon actual UK vehicle registrations, year over year from Jan 2022 to Jan 2023, were up over 18%. There’s objective facts and then there’s opinion.

That said, I have no doubt that BEV adoption may cool off as global recession sets in - but so will ICE vehicle purchases. Unlike BEV purchases - which have been consistently increasing in volume for the past several years, including throughout the pandemic, ICE vehicle purchases have been declining consistently over that same time period.

 

[Passepartout]

That said, I have no doubt that BEV adoption may cool off as global recession sets in - but so will ICE vehicle purchases. Unlike BEV purchases - which have been consistently increasing in volume for the past several years, including throughout the pandemic, ICE vehicle purchases have been declining consistently over that same time period.

But, but, but, how about used Rolls Royces?

 

[easyrider]

I actually heard Gerardo Rivera say he was buying a Bentley ev in 2025 while arguing that every one needs to get an ev.

Bill

 

[Superchief]

LOL

Maybe when the oil wells run dry the "fad" will make a comeback

I read a recent report that there is enough oil in Alaska to meet US demands for the next 100 years, so I'm not worried about our oil supply unless the government continues to restrict access. I worry a lot more about being able to get the materials for batteries for EV's.

 

[MrockStar]

I only need enough oil to last about 33 more years so That's way more than i will need. Thanks.

 

[geerlijd]

Acticle from MotorTrend:

Science has repeatedly shown EVs are better for humans, despite the meme you just retweeted (or posted on TUG)​

You're Being Lied to About Electric Cars

Sorry, that meme you just retweeted isn't correct.

www.motortrend.com

Kurt

The author captures the efficiency differences in the vehicle, however one part of the equation the author omits is efficiency loss in producing electricity.

40% of the US grid is powered by natural gas, and gas power plants are 45-57 % efficient.

20% of the US grid is powered by coal and coal plants are 35-40% efficient.

So the true efficiency of an EV is about 30-35% lower when this is factored in (~60% instead of 87-91%), still higher than ICE (15-25%).

 

[Brett]

I only need enough oil to last about 33 more years so That's way more than i will need. Thanks.

U R welcome

countdown to the last barrel of oil:

https://www.worldometers.info

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

U R welcome

countdown to the last barrel of oil:

https://www.worldometers.info

Conceptually inaccurate. Can a barrel of oil be produced at a current price? Can the price change with technology? (It did with fracking.) Have all the potential oil deposits been cataloged? All questions not included in the number given.

 

[Superchief]

Conceptually inaccurate. Can a barrel of oil be produced at a current price? Can the price change with technology? (It did with fracking.) Have all the potential oil deposits been cataloged? All questions not included in the number given.

I question all of the statistics on that site. Many of the statistics generated to get support for more regulations are based on models that make a lot of assumptions and involve inaccurate measurement tools. The more concerning question is what government regulations will limit the utilization of our most efficient/affordable energy sources.

I'm also concerned when forests are cut down to put in solar farms. The lost CO2 conversion and water absorption will have more detrimental impact on the environment than any benefits from the energy source.

 

[Ken555]

I read a recent report that there is enough oil in Alaska to meet US demands for the next 100 years, so I'm not worried about our oil supply unless the government continues to restrict access. I worry a lot more about being able to get the materials for batteries for EV's.

This is the underlying issue that confuses so many of us. We know oil is a finite resource yet we don’t care we aren’t changing as a society to accommodate. We have alternative solutions that, for about a hundred years, have prove to solve the issue. Some are fixated on temporary technical issues as a reason not to change, such as your inflated concern of EV components.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

I only need enough oil to last about 33 more years so That's way more than i will need. Thanks.

This is an incredibly selfish perspective. Sorry I can’t say I’m surprised.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

I'm also concerned when forests are cut down to put in wind turbines and solar farms. The lost CO2 conversion and water absorption will have more detrimental impact on the environment than any benefits from the energy source.

Yet many people of similar persuasion seem to have none of the same concern when we cut down forests and pollute Alaska and other natural habitats to drill and extract fossil fuels. The cognitive dissonance appears palpable.

Globally to meet total electric demand, after having converted the entire transportation fleet to BEV, for the entire planet with 100% renewables, we would currently require 0.2% of land mass. We are already using more than 0.2% land mass for existing fossil fuel based electric generation. The false narrative that somehow using solar and wind combined with mass storage arrays as our primary power generation source is going to in any way be worse than what we currently have, is simply misinformation when we look at the facts of the matter.

 

[Superchief]

Yet many people of similar persuasion seem to have none of the same concern when we cut down forests and pollute Alaska and other natural habitats to drill and extract fossil fuels. The cognitive dissonance appears palpable.

Globally to meet total electric demand, after having converted the entire transportation fleet to BEV, for the entire planet with 100% renewables, we would currently require 0.2% of land mass. We are already using more than 0.2% land mass for existing fossil fuel based electric generation. The false narrative that somehow using solar and wind combined with mass storage arrays as our primary power generation source is going to in any way be worse than what we currently have, is simply misinformation when we look at the facts of the matter.

I am also against cutting down forests for oil production, but most of the oil wells I've seen aren't in highly forested areas and don't require large areas because it involves drilling into the ground. I'm totally in favor of pursuing alternative sources, but realize this won't happen overnight and shouldn't be forced on us until it works.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

This is an incredibly selfish perspective. Sorry I can’t say I’m surprised.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Have you already stopped using any airplanes, only drive an electric car, and run your house on only the electricity you can generate - all the time?

(And therefore, only vacation at places you can get to solely by the electric car?)

It's easy to "talk the talk", and demand others follow that dicta, but it only counts when you "walk the walk".

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Yet many people of similar persuasion seem to have none of the same concern when we cut down forests and pollute Alaska and other natural habitats to drill and extract fossil fuels. The cognitive dissonance appears palpable.

Globally to meet total electric demand, after having converted the entire transportation fleet to BEV, for the entire planet with 100% renewables, we would currently require 0.2% of land mass. We are already using more than 0.2% land mass for existing fossil fuel based electric generation. The false narrative that somehow using solar and wind combined with mass storage arrays as our primary power generation source is going to in any way be worse than what we currently have, is simply misinformation when we look at the facts of the matter.

All the facts of the matter? The total energy cost to create those solar panels, the fact that solar panels decay over time, all the birds killed by wind turbines, the expense of build huge battery farms to store electricity when the sun isn't shining and the winds isn't blowing?

Those facts also?

 

[Blues]

U R welcome

countdown to the last barrel of oil:

https://www.worldometers.info

I still remember attending the very first Earth Day, in April 1970. I listened carefully to lots of speakers. The thing that most sticks in my memory was the claim that oil would become very scarce through the 1980s and 1990s, and that the world would definitely run out of oil by the year 2000.

 

[Passepartout]

I still remember attending the very first Earth Day, in April 1970. I listened carefully to lots of speakers. The thing that most sticks in my memory was the claim that oil would become very scarce through the 1980s and 1990s, and that the world would definitely run out of oil by the year 2000.

In 1970, we were paying $0.30 a gallon for it. We couldn't comprehend that in our lifetimes gas would cost 15X as much, and we'd sit in line to get it.

Jim

 

[Superchief]

I still remember attending the very first Earth Day, in April 1970. I listened carefully to lots of speakers. The thing that most sticks in my memory was the claim that oil would become very scarce through the 1980s and 1990s, and that the world would definitely run out of oil by the year 2000.

Isn't that about the time that a former vice president predicted that New York would be under water due in a few years due to climate change? Has anyone determined how the used solar panels and lithium and cobalt batteries will be disposed of? What will the long term environmental impact be for these materials. Energy will involve evolution because no energy source will likely ever be perfect.

Man is definitely impacting the climate but many of the proposed solutions may have greater impact than what we are currently doing. The US has actually reduced carbon emissions over the past few years so the improvements in gas efficiency and reduced pollution have had a positive impact.

 

[PigsDad]

I am also against cutting down forests for oil production, but most of the oil wells I've seen aren't in highly forested areas and don't require large areas because it involves drilling into the ground. I'm totally in favor of pursuing alternative sources, but realize this won't happen overnight and shouldn't be forced on us until it works.

Wow. Your experiences are a complete 180 degrees from mine. Most wind farms are in open, barren land. Plus, the base of a wind generator is what? 15-20'? Not much clearing needed even if they were in wooded areas.

Second, have you seen the typical pad needed to drill a single oil well? It is on the order of 5 acres for each well. To prove this point, I went to google maps in an area close to where I live in CO and used the measuring tool. This is just a typical oil / natural gas well in this area:

The total area of 227,000 sq. ft. = 5.2 acres. And these are peppered all over the country around here.

In comparison, here is a google map image of a typical wind generator:

Being very generous with the surrounding area, 7,652 sq. ft. = 0.18 acres. Quite the difference. And here is the wider image of the wind farm -- not a tree in sight (and there never was):

I count 23 wind generators. The total space used (and remember I was very generous) is less than that one oil well.

But you may say, "Hey, that picture of the oil well was while it was being drilled. After it is in production, it uses much less area." Nope. The oil companies keep those pads even after they are in production and put storage tanks and other equipment there. Here is a couple of production oil wells right next to each other, both taking up valuable farm/ranch land. The larger pad is just over 8 acres, and the smaller is over 6 acres:

And by the way, when you google "wind farm", here are the images that comes up:

Not seeing a lot of wooded areas where the wind farms were put in. Now, one can certainly find pictures of wind farms in wooded areas, but even then the area cleared out looks tiny compared to a single oil well pad. Sorry, your argument of wind farms taking up more space or eliminating more trees vs. oil wells is quite hard to believe.

Kurt

 

[HitchHiker71]

All the facts of the matter? The total energy cost to create those solar panels, the fact that solar panels decay over time, all the birds killed by wind turbines, the expense of build huge battery farms to store electricity when the sun isn't shining and the winds isn't blowing?

Those facts also?

And yet doing all that will use less land mass than we use today - meaning that on a per capita basis - using renewables with battery storage arrays is actually more efficient than what we’re using today. Why should we continue to use old outdated technology that is fossil fuel based given these facts? We should accelerate this change, not practice resistance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MrockStar]

Yet many people of similar persuasion seem to have none of the same concern when we cut down forests and pollute Alaska and other natural habitats to drill and extract fossil fuels. The cognitive dissonance appears palpable.

Globally to meet total electric demand, after having converted the entire transportation fleet to BEV, for the entire planet with 100% renewables, we would currently require 0.2% of land mass. We are already using more than 0.2% land mass for existing fossil fuel based electric generation. The false narrative that somehow using solar and wind combined with mass storage arrays as our primary power generation source is going to in any way be worse than what we currently have, is simply misinformation when we look at the facts of the matter.

Nuclear Please, No massive solar farms except in deserts are needed or wanted.

 

[geist1223]

In California the original Solar Panels from about 30 years ago are now being worn out and removed. There is no planned recycling of them. So many of them end up in Landfills leaching their harmful metals into the ground water. There are few to no recycling Plants for EV vehicles' Batteries. If lithium batteries are not recycled correctly there can be fires and/or explosions.

 

[MrockStar]

Yup.

 

[PigsDad]

In California the original Solar Panels from about 30 years ago are now being worn out and removed. There is no planned recycling of them. So many of them end up in Landfills leaching their harmful metals into the ground water. There are few to no recycling Plants for EV vehicles' Batteries. If lithium batteries are not recycled correctly there can be fires and/or explosions.

I can see you've been watching FoxNews again...

Kurt

 

[Superchief]

Wow. Your experiences are a complete 180 degrees from mine. Most wind farms are in open, barren land. Plus, the base of a wind generator is what? 15-20'? Not much clearing needed even if they were in wooded areas.

Second, have you seen the typical pad needed to drill a single oil well? It is on the order of 5 acres for each well. To prove this point, I went to google maps in an area close to where I live in CO and used the measuring tool. This is just a typical oil / natural gas well in this area:
View attachment 75717

The total area of 227,000 sq. ft. = 5.2 acres. And these are peppered all over the country around here.

In comparison, here is a google map image of a typical wind generator:
View attachment 75718
Being very generous with the surrounding area, 7,652 sq. ft. = 0.18 acres. Quite the difference. And here is the wider image of the wind farm -- not a tree in sight (and there never was):
View attachment 75719
I count 23 wind generators. The total space used (and remember I was very generous) is less than that one oil well.

But you may say, "Hey, that picture of the oil well was while it was being drilled. After it is in production, it uses much less area." Nope. The oil companies keep those pads even after they are in production and put storage tanks and other equipment there. Here is a couple of production oil wells right next to each other, both taking up valuable farm/ranch land. The larger pad is just over 8 acres, and the smaller is over 6 acres:
View attachment 75720

And by the way, when you google "wind farm", here are the images that comes up:
View attachment 75721

Not seeing a lot of wooded areas where the wind farms were put in. Now, one can certainly find pictures of wind farms in wooded areas, but even then the area cleared out looks tiny compared to a single oil well pad. Sorry, your argument of wind farms taking up more space or eliminating more trees vs. oil wells is quite hard to believe.

Kurt

You are correct that solar farms are typically in areas without a lot of trees and can be efficiently be used on farms without requiring a lot of space. I was actually thinking more about solar farms. I saw many areas in Georgia along I75 on a recent trip where trees were being chopped down for solar farms. Many farming fields in Ohio are also being replaced with solar farms. These make no sense to me because our forests and farms are essential for climate stabilization and food supply. There are many old industrial sites or former electric plants that would make more sense for solar farms. I also can't recall seeing oil wells in a forested area, but have seen a few on farms. Additionally, oil production in the US is much cleaner than similar production in many of the other countries that we buy from, so it would be better for the environment to produce more domestically. Solar energy is great for sunny climates and desert areas, wind energy works well in the plains with wide open field and steady win. We need to keep all options open and continue to utilize what makes the most sense in a specific area. Government intervention seldom encourages efficiency and affordability.