EV drawbacks

Lineslinger said:
Reality and factual information......the true scourge of another political agenda referred to as the "Green Deal".
You won't hear any of the above information on MSM, that I can count on.
Click to expand...
I am aware of the evils of strip mining shown above because of MSM. It is mentioned from time to time, just not harped on for days on end like the pay to view networks do to keep viewers pissed off about so called green energy or whatever negative thing they decide to push next week. Yes the MSM dose make mistakes and present misleading reports from time to time but not nearly as often or deliberate as the 24 hour cable networks. it's easy to fact check and I do often. The cable channels are so obviously slanted either right or left that most of talking heads are spreading BS in whatever direction their audience leans. A lot of people still watch and take seriously a network that won a law suit because they convinced a judge that most of what their # 1 personality presented was BS and any reasonable viewer would know it. The same network recently lost, settled, nearly a billion dollar law suit for pushing lies... This I just don't get and probably never will so pleas don't try to explain.
 
Last edited:
grandpaul said:
That comparison won't be known for approximately 100 years. That's how long ICE cars have been prolific.
Click to expand...
I think that’s probably inaccurate GP. Every new car made has its emissions measured and recorded, so it appears that it is relatively straight forward for scientists to make these lifetime calculations. I guess worldwide production of petroleum would be more difficult.

Would the production of lithium batteries and a lifetime of EV’s emmiting water vapour compare? I realise that it is more complicated than that when infrastructure (required by both) is factored in, but this comparison does’nt really stack up. Noting also that both EV and ICE cars have to be manufactured and disposed of/recycled.

IMO current EV technology will likely come and go with other technologies brought on-line over the coming decades; a gateway technology if you like, through to other solutions. Failing to go through that gateway and continuing to spew carbon monoxide until man has a 100% replacement solution is not really an option - technology advances in increments. Of course we are not just talking about vehicles; they are just part of the mix of solutions required.

www.epa.gov

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle | US EPA

This page answers questions about GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and how these emissions are measured and calculated.
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov

9D563C3D-783C-4851-B07D-610A797BD83E.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
I think that’s probably inaccurate GP. Every new car made has its emissions measured and recorded, so it appears that it is relatively straight forward for scientists to make these lifetime calculations. I guess worldwide production of petroleum would be more difficult.

Would the production of lithium batteries and a lifetime of EV’s emmiting water vapour compare? I realise that it is more complicated than that when infrastructure (required by both) is factored in, but this comparison does’nt really stack up. Noting also that both EV and ICE cars have to be manufactured and disposed of/recycled.

IMO current EV technology will likely come and go with other technologies brought on-line over the coming decades; a gateway technology if you like, through to other solutions. Failing to go through that gateway and continuing to spew carbon monoxide until man has a 100% replacement solution is not really an option - technology advances in increments. Of course we are not just talking about vehicles; they are just part of the mix of solutions required.
Click to expand...
Yeah, scientists have been GREAT predicting the future.

No, it will take 100 years to see the TRUE effects from ALL of the intertwined webs that form the greenery being peddled. My GUESS (I can predict about as well as ANY scientist) is that it won't be any "greener" than coal.
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
I think that’s probably inaccurate GP. Every new car made has its emissions measured and recorded, so it appears that it is relatively straight forward for scientists to make these lifetime calculations. I guess worldwide production of petroleum would be more difficult.

Would the production of lithium batteries and a lifetime of EV’s emmiting water vapour compare? I realise that it is more complicated than that when infrastructure (required by both) is factored in, but this comparison does’nt really stack up. Noting also that both EV and ICE cars have to be manufactured and disposed of/recycled.

IMO current EV technology will likely come and go with other technologies brought on-line over the coming decades; a gateway technology if you like, through to other solutions. Failing to go through that gateway and continuing to spew carbon monoxide until man has a 100% replacement solution is not really an option - technology advances in increments. Of course we are not just talking about vehicles; they are just part of the mix of solutions required.

www.epa.gov

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle | US EPA

This page answers questions about GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and how these emissions are measured and calculated.
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov

View attachment 106821
Click to expand...
No.

Total supply chain and total life time carbon footprints are difficult to calculate. In fact they’re only estimatable.

For EVs its really not much more than a guess at the moment because we actually do not know what the average lifecycle of the batteries, or cars, is going to be.

If you don’t know the lifespan… you can’t predict lifecycle carbon footprint.

Thats partly because the technical lifespan of the batteries is not yet clear, and will change, but perhaps more importantly, we don’t yet know how the economics will affect the cars lifespan. As discussed earlier, it’s currently looking like EVs will become ‘write offs’ WAY before the car is technically at end of life, because of battery change costs.

We also do not yet know the full impact of recycling, we’re currently only playing at it as the number of EVs and batteries at end of life is TINY. When it’s at the mass numbers, it will be an exponentially bigger challenge.

But the biggest issue is obviously the energy supply topic, and how carbon neutral that is REALLY going to be…
 
EstuaryBoy said:
It's okay folks..... It's all down to us being thick!

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
In my option Evs are just another tool to fool you into more govt regulation...im a active advocate in my community for stamping out man made pollution (especially water care)...and to me thats more important than this fiasco ...mean while our rivers ..harbors and oceans remain the same and the focus by them has shifted to another tangent being this crap which is "already" having a detrimental effect on the environment.
When was the last time you saw the govt put our money into cleaning up reserves beaches etc....its all done here by community groups that are self funded...screw them...and once again this is a basic repeated example https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/07/28/petition-urges-govt-to-ban-plastic-waste-exports/
 
grandpaul said:
Yeah, scientists have been GREAT predicting the future.

No, it will take 100 years to see the TRUE effects from ALL of the intertwined webs that form the greenery being peddled. My GUESS (I can predict about as well as ANY scientist) is that it won't be any "greener" than coal.
Click to expand...
With responses like ‘No’ and ‘No it will take 100 years…’ we might consider that we are exchanging opinions here not facts;)!

I realise there may be some vested interest in the below information; that does‘nt mean that the information is false. Worth having a look.

4F755FEA-8FBB-4F63-9349-2F0E2AC2CFF7.jpeg

www.epa.gov

Electric Vehicle Myths | US EPA

Facts and myths about electric vehicles.
www.epa.gov www.epa.gov

EV: Batteries

Learn about electric car batteries: how they work & how they're different to what's in your phone, to range, reliability & what happens when they wear out
www.edfenergy.com www.edfenergy.com

www.virta.global

Myth buster: Electric vehicles are not green | Virta

Are electric cars really better for the environment than petrol or diesel cars? Some people claim that the C02 from the production of an EV is just as bad.
www.virta.global www.virta.global
 
Last edited:
@grandpaul

Its called Post-Normal science, it allows you to pretty much ignore normal scientific practise like making a prediction of hypothesis effects and applying tests to confirm or refute the hypothesis and instead ignore the data that does not fit the theory.

Somehow its ok to apply this to an hypothesis where there are opposing views but if the hypothesis ends up being correct then the results will be dire.

But who decides if the results are going to be dire, every previous warm period is called a Climate Optimum, why is this pleasantly warming period any different to the previous optimum's.

Its almost as if they made up Post Normal Science to fit the situation they find themselves in.

en.wikipedia.org

Post-normal science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
It needs an 'The Emperor has no Clothes' moment, when that will come is unknown.

A local dairy farmer's son was set a task to write an essay on the adverse Climate change effects of Dairy farming. When he said he would write the opposite he was told by the teacher he would be failed on the course if he did write as he said.

They no longer teach critical thinking in UK schools, only a preset mantra to be followed at all cost.
 
grandpaul said:
So, unlike all the stuff the greenies are complaining about, that took 100 years to see the long-term effects of, THIS stuff's long-term effects will be known in the short term?

Modern science is amazing, it also defies time.
Click to expand...
Useful and suitably vague comment GP; from a sceptics point of view. Guaranteed to illicit a few ‘thumbs up‘ (check), without actually making a point that relates to any alternate information/ thinking - alternate to your own thinking that is.

From a technological perspective, things used to move a little more slowly. In more recent times, not surprisingly, technological/ knowledge based developments have increased sciences ability to assess situations - and to measure outcomes. Computers may have helped a little.

Are we discussing what’s actually happening or just practicing intellectual masturbation? I do not accept the lefts party line in its entirety (despite accusations here), but am ‘left‘ wondering if anybody here is willing to adopt a balanced view. Or is current climate thinking all just F#@KED & CORRUPT?
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
Useful and suitably vague comment GP; from a sceptics point of view. Guaranteed to illicit a few ‘thumbs up‘ (check), without actually making a point that relates to any alternate information/ thinking - alternate to your own thinking that is.

From a technological perspective, things used to move a little more slowly. In more recent times, not surprisingly, technological/ knowledge based developments have increased sciences ability to assess situations - and to measure outcomes. Computers may have helped a little.

Are we discussing what’s actually happening or just practicing intellectual masturbation? I do not accept the lefts party line in its entirety (despite accusations here), but am ‘left‘ wondering if anybody here is willing to adopt a balanced view. Or is current climate thinking all just FUCKED & CORRUPT?
Click to expand...
I might not be so obtuse, if I weren't FORCED to PAY (taxes) for a lot of this nonsense.

It's NOT "politics", it's out-of control government, wasting OUR money on things that DO NOT benefit ALL of the citizens, and have naught to do with governance.
 
Last edited:
rweb said:
I am aware of the evils of strip mining shown above because of MSM. It is mentioned from time to time, just not harped on for days on end like the pay to view networks do to keep viewers pissed off about so called green energy or whatever negative thing they decide to push next week. Yes the MSM dose make mistakes and present misleading reports from time to time but not nearly as often or deliberate as the 24 hour cable networks. it's easy to fact check and I do often. The cable channels are so obviously slanted either right or left that most of talking heads are spreading BS in whatever direction their audience leans. A lot of people still watch and take seriously a network that won a law suit because they convinced a judge that most of what their # 1 personality presented was BS and any reasonable viewer would know it. The same network recently lost, settled, nearly a billion dollar law suit for pushing lies... This I just don't get and probably never will so pleas don't try to explain.
Click to expand...

Nothing to explain, please don't fret that I might try given your stance on the issue.

It is up to the reader/viewer to display the knowledge and the ability to discern between entertainment/political grandstanding disguising itself as a viable news source and an alternate source offering accountable, pertinent information.
Your link copies and partisan responses have clearly demonstrated your preference.
 
The mining question is a good one. The Economist had a recent article noting that there are instances of rainforest being clear felled to allow new mines for battery raw materials. Hardly a net gain there. Ideally there should be a measure of how "clean" the whole supply chain going into the manufacture is. Not sure how that could be policed though.
DIsclaimer - Tesla model 3 driver, for everyday use (not towing a heavy load etc) i wouldn't volunteerily go back to ICE. Net petrol cost saving has paid for the 3 phase home charger within 9 months.
 
Last edited:
grandpaul said:
I might not be so obtuse, if I weren't FORCED to PAY (taxes) for a lot of this nonsense.

It's NOT "politics", it's out-of control government, wasting OUR money on things that DO NOT benefit ALL of the citizens, and have naught to do with governance.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s not all about taxes, money, politics, corruption, vested interests, governance or controlling we the people - maybe a skerrick of it is about the environment! :oops:
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
Useful and suitably vague comment GP; from a sceptics point of view. Guaranteed to illicit a few ‘thumbs up‘ (check), without actually making a point that relates to any alternate information/ thinking - alternate to your own thinking that is.

From a technological perspective, things used to move a little more slowly. In more recent times, not surprisingly, technological/ knowledge based developments have increased sciences ability to assess situations - and to measure outcomes. Computers may have helped a little.

Are we discussing what’s actually happening or just practicing intellectual masturbation? I do not accept the lefts party line in its entirety (despite accusations here), but am ‘left‘ wondering if anybody here is willing to adopt a balanced view. Or is current climate thinking all just F#@KED & CORRUPT?
Click to expand...
🤮
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
Useful and suitably vague comment GP; from a sceptics point of view. Guaranteed to illicit a few ‘thumbs up‘ (check), without actually making a point that relates to any alternate information/ thinking - alternate to your own thinking that is.

From a technological perspective, things used to move a little more slowly. In more recent times, not surprisingly, technological/ knowledge based developments have increased sciences ability to assess situations - and to measure outcomes. Computers may have helped a little.

Are we discussing what’s actually happening or just practicing intellectual masturbation? I do not accept the lefts party line in its entirety (despite accusations here), but am ‘left‘ wondering if anybody here is willing to adopt a balanced view. Or is current climate thinking all just F#@KED & CORRUPT?
Click to expand...

Stephen, you accuse those who are on the right and fond of conspiracy theories as being, well, right wing conspiracy theorists.

You accuse those trying to maintain a balanced central position as being on the fence.

Seems to me that YOUR definition of balanced is someone who agrees with you.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Stephen, you accuse those who are on the right and fond of conspiracy theories as being, well, right wing conspiracy theorists.

You accuse those trying to maintain a balanced central position as being on the fence.

Seems to me that YOUR definition of balanced is someone who agrees with you.
Click to expand...
Hey FE,

With respect, your comment is way off the mark IMO. Take the time to read back through this thread - while you’re at it, see if you believe your position has been truly ‘balanced and central’.

I suppose I should have taken my cue from the title of this thread. It was always going to be a completely one sided discussion - not phased by that at all.

I’ve posted mainstream information/content that is in line with current thinking, because that is what I believe to be true. I believe the IPCC has consensus and that there is sufficient expertise and evidence to show that they are on the right track; I have reservations, but not enough to derail my opinion. Our views on EV’s are clear enough.

Have a look how many times any of that more mainstream information has actually been responded to beyond: derision, sarcasm, laughter icons, thumbs down or the words ‘no’ or ‘nope’ etc.

See if you can find a single ocassion where anyone has read the content and offered a balanced response - or whether it has been just ignored. No room for an alternate narrative. Admittedly I have responded in similar fashion ocassionally, but I guess that’s gonna happen when you’re on your Jack Jones in a debate.

Not looking for anybody to agree with me - just to move beyond the overwhelmingly negative commentary and look at the possibility that there may be some merit to the mainstream narrative. That just maybe, our scientists and politicians have’nt got it all wrong. Is this a real discussion, or is this thread by that definition redundant.
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
Hey FE,

With respect, your comment is way off the mark IMO. Take the time to read back through this thread - while you’re at it, see if you believe your position has been truly ‘balanced and central’.

I suppose I should have taken my cue from the title of this thread. It was always going to be a completely one sided discussion - not phased by that at all.

I’ve posted mainstream information/content that is in line with current thinking, because that is what I believe to be true. I believe the IPCC has consensus and that there is sufficient expertise and evidence to show that they are on the right track; I have reservations, but not enough to derail my opinion. Our views on EV’s are clear enough.

Have a look how many times any of that more mainstream information has actually been responded to beyond: derision, sarcasm, laughter icons, thumbs down or the words ‘no’ or ‘nope’ etc.

See if you can find a single ocassion where anyone has read the content and offered a balanced response - or whether it has been just ignored. No room for an alternate narrative. Admittedly I have responded in similar fashion ocassionally, but I guess that’s gonna happen when you’re on your Jack Jones in a debate.

Not looking for anybody to agree with me - just to move beyond the overwhelmingly negative commentary and look at the possibility that there may be some merit to the mainstream narrative. That just maybe, our scientists and politicians have’nt got it all wrong. Is this a real discussion, or is this thread by that definition redundant.
Click to expand...
You reinforce a fact known to me for quite some time.

That side of the argument is merely a "contest of volume".
Contains NO critical thinking.
 
Back
Top