Zone1 Used car and truck market.

[beagle9]

lol you have no idea at ll what he's talking about. That's par for commies and their Useful Idiots.

In real news, it takes 47 years for an EV to break even on it's production pollution; they don't even last 15 years. They never break even on total pollution produced. They produce twice the ozone per mileas well.

Funny thing is, is that this stuff has been tried throughout the year's or centuries, and I bet that Jay Leno has the evidence in his vast collection of cars and their failures. Jet cars, EVs, steam powered and more. I know, I know, but, but, but, but they'll say it's different now therefore going against literally hundreds of years of tried and tested concepts that ended in what was the most practical, sustainable, affordable, reliable concepts that we use today, but somehow they know better.

Nothing wrong with trying new thing's or concepts, but when it's linked to political power In hopes to control thing's all to the benefit of the few elites, when all the while the people in mass begin to suffer greatly is when we have a huge should have been avoidable crisis on our hands.

 

[otto105]

lol you think re-posting rubbish makes it come true, like magic n stuff?

Rubish is what you post dud.

What facts can you offer on the 47-year claim.

 

[DudleySmith]

Nothing wrong with trying new thing's or concepts

I have an EV myself, and I love the thing, so it's not like it's some ideological fetish with me. But it's obvious Ev's are a joke as a replacement, especially in the timelines these loons are demanding it be done.

 

[beagle9]

Electric Vehicles Contribute Fewer Emissions Than Gasoline-Powered Cars Over Their Lifetimes - FactCheck.org

Emphasis on the word fewer, because they'll be fewer enjoying modern day technology while the special classes rule over them with their perceived Jetson mobiles.

Sounds like you want to hurry your dumb ace back to the 1800s.

 

[DudleySmith]

Rubish is what you post dud.

What facts can you offer on the 47-year claim.

Plenty. Maybe you should read up on it, shit for brains.

 

[otto105]

Emphasis on the word fewer, because they'll be fewer enjoying modern day technology while the special classes rule over them with their perceived Jetson mobiles.

Sounds like you want to hurry your dumb ace back to the 1800s.

The were EVs in the 1880's.

 

[beagle9]

I have an EV myself, and I love the thing, so it's not like it's some ideological fetish with me. But it's obvious Ev's are a joke as a replacement, especially in the timelines these loons are demanding it be done.

Kuddos to your play toy, and yes I agree with your post ..

 

[beagle9]

The were EVs in the 1880's.

Went right over your head didn't it ?

 

[otto105]

Went right over your head didn't it ?

Hilarious

Must be a Xwatter thing with you fuckups.

 

[beagle9]

Hilarious

Must be a Xwatter thing with you fuckups.

Sorry your college professor didn't teach you too read between the lines boy.

 

[otto105]

Sorry your college professor didn't teach you too read between the lines boy.

Discord?

 

[beagle9]

Discord?

You force it, but yes let's abide by the category "clean debate" zone.. Agree

 

[Captain Caveman]

Electric Vehicles Contribute Fewer Emissions Than Gasoline-Powered Cars Over Their Lifetimes - FactCheck.org

You didn't understand.

The comparison is made up of three parts -

1- carbon footprint to manufacture the vehicle (raw materials etc)

2- refueling/charging (which is the only bit you're thinking of)

3- the carbon footprint to breakdown and recycle the vehicle.

Hence why the size of the battery, the worst part of an EV, alters the 13% to 30% figure.


To make and EV, the carbon footprint is very high and it takes a few years to break even with an ICE vehicle. But if it's written off due to a minor prang before the break even part, EV's are worse for the environment than fossil fuels.

So if step 2 is short for an EV, they're dreadful for your imaginary cause.

 

[2aguy]

You didn't understand.

The comparison is made up of three parts -

1- carbon footprint to manufacture the vehicle (raw materials etc)

2- refueling/charging (which is the only bit you're thinking of)

3- the carbon footprint to breakdown and recycle the vehicle.

Hence why the size of the battery, the worst part of an EV, alters the 13% to 30% figure.


To make and EV, the carbon footprint is very high and it takes a few years to break even with an ICE vehicle. But if it's written off due to a minor prang before the break even part, EV's are worse for the environment than fossil fuels.

So if step 2 is short for an EV, they're dreadful for your imaginary cause.

And now they are saying the heavy weight of the vehicle degrades tires much faster than ICE vehicles, and creates more particulate pollution than an ICE car...

 

[otto105]

You didn't understand.

The comparison is made up of three parts -

1- carbon footprint to manufacture the vehicle (raw materials etc)

2- refueling/charging (which is the only bit you're thinking of)

3- the carbon footprint to breakdown and recycle the vehicle.

Hence why the size of the battery, the worst part of an EV, alters the 13% to 30% figure.


To make and EV, the carbon footprint is very high and it takes a few years to break even with an ICE vehicle. But if it's written off due to a minor prang before the break even part, EV's are worse for the environment than fossil fuels.

So if step 2 is short for an EV, they're dreadful for your imaginary cause.

Post your source.

 

[beagle9]

Post your source.

For you ? Pffft.. How about you practice what you preach ?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Post your source.

This lists the figures, it's actually 17% to 30%. The report I read a few years, explained the breakdown. If I find the EU Report, I will supply the link.

They looked at the carbon footprint of making the vehicles, running and servicing the vehicles, and scrapping them over their lifetime. It stated the battery size gave rise to the 17% to 30% range. Then they tried to beef the figures up in more favour of the EV's by stating the charging figures included fossil fuel made electric.

But, EV's cost quite a bit more in co2 to manufacture due to the raw materials to make the batteries, that's built into the figures.

EEA report confirms: electric cars are better for climate and air quality

Battery electric cars emit less greenhouse gases and air pollutants over their entire life cycle than petrol and diesel cars, according to a European Environment Agency (EEA) report, published today. Promoting renewable energy and circular economy — including the shared use of vehicles and...

www.eea.europa.eu

Emissions are usually higher in the production phase of electric cars, but these are more than offset by lower emissions in the use phase over time.


That's ^^ the part where it says, "Over time", but what time. More co2 to produce, more co2 to scrap, the saving is in the middle. How long does the middle need to be to get the co2 saving. With insurance companies quick to scrap them, EV's are not really a bed of roses.

Edit - in the link, there's a link to the PDF report

Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives - TERM 2018

Through the Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM) report, the EEA has been monitoring progress in integrating environmental objectives in transport since 2000. The TERM report provides information to the EEA's member countries, the EU and the public. The TERM includes several...

www.eea.europa.eu

 

[Captain Caveman]

otto105

This is where you take transport co2 output, of that figure, take the co2 produced by cars, vans, lorries, buses. Then take 17% to 30% of that as a possible saving.

I saw this a year or two ago on a forum analysed out, and the figure ain't big. So the conclusion was, all this upheaval and inconvenience for a small saving, the alarmists came galloping in screaming, "It's a start".

 

[luiza]

Pick one off the roadside for nothing once the Big Die Off is in full swing .
There will not be enough police to be interested and by then market prices will have imploded .

 

[yidnar]

Surely that is not your Jeep. You are an unusual person, but anybody that would paint or buy a Jeep that color should have there ass sewn shut, probably as a health hazard to others.

that's the new paint job you were bragging about ..