I've decided to buy an electric car to do my part

[elektra]

EV's are very efficient. And, there's no compelling reason to charge them with green energy. Sign up for off-peak (time-of-use) electric rates and charge it up overnight. This would actually save a lot of fossil fuel. My off-peak rate is $.056/KwH.

Says you, a heavier vehicle takes more energy to run. Using energy by storing it, then using that energy requires more energy.

Laws of physics even apply to the inefficient EV's

 

[elektra]

Only if you ignore the fact that they must be charged for hours a day vs a gas car that gets fueled once a week.
They do not need to be charged daily unless you drive the range of the vehicle everyday which for new vehicle is 150 miles for compacts, 200-250 miles for intermediates, Over 300 miles for the luxury cars.
Since the average driver only drives 35 miles a day, he would only need to charge about every 5, 7, or 10 days. Batteries in new EVs hold their charge well so there is no need to charge everyday, however many people do it just in case they need it.

Only if you ignore you are using a much heavier car, which means it uses more natural resources to build.
That may be true. I don't know.

Only if you ignore that the extra weight is going to cause more damage to the roads.
That is generally true but it depends on the car and how much owners drive the cars. Today's EV owners tend to drive less than ICE cars and that will be case for many years.

Only if you ignore that charging a battery for an electric car uses more energy.
More energy than what? The average EV gets an mpg equivalent of about 120mpg equivalent. MPG Equivalent is a means to compare the amount of energy consumed by vehicles using alternative fuels to those of gas-powered engines.

Only if you ignore the limited range
Yes that is a drawback. However, for most drivers having a range of 150, 200 250, or 300 miles should not be a big problem considering most drivers drive only 35 miles a day. And with increase in number of charging stations at motels, hotel, shopping centers, and government buildings, it will only be a minor inconvenience for drivers taken longer trips. Although if I drove cross country on a regular basis, I would not get an EV at this time.

Only if you ignore the elements used are finite
Lithium is the 33rd most abundant element on earth and recycling will recover almost all the major elements used in EV batteries.

Electric cars are a wasteful inefficient luxury.
Not so. Buying a car that reduces green house gases is not a luxury. In fact, a lot of people think of it as a necessity. Although the average price of EVs is high, $65,000, most EVs on the market have an MSRP under $50,000. The lowest price EV is $21,000 with the tax credit.

EV's do not reduce green house gases, bigger means they create more. Bigger is less efficient.

Most people in los angelos, new york city, atlanta, washington dc spend a minimum of 2 hours a day in traffic.

35 miles? Ha

 

[Flash]

In California there are 14.2 million cars on the road and 1.2 million of them are EVs. That's 8.5% of vehicles and they are being handled just fine on the California's electric grid.

Most calculation like this are based on ridiculous assumptions such as using the maximum charging current which occurs in the first few seconds of charging and then assuming every EV will charge their vehicles at exactly the same time.

U.S.: total number of cars by state| Statista

Which state has the most cars? California, Florida, and Texas topped the cars by state ranking as the only states with over seven million car registrations.

www.statista.com

Can California's grid handle more EVs?

Millions of new electric vehicles are expected to hit the road in California in the next decade.

www.kpbs.org

It takes a lot of power to charge a vehicle L-I battery pack. Like the amount of power that a household normally uses in a 24 hour period. Around 7 or 8 kilowatts.

Yes you can spread it out by charging at night but at the end of the day it is still a doubling of the amount of electricity that a normal household uses for one or two days a week depending on how much the vehicle is used. That electricity has to be generated and that is a tremendous burden on our already stressed power grid.

My son that lives in Atlanta has a Tesla that he uses for his 30 mile round trip daily commute to work. He usually puts about 50 miles a day on his vehicle. Most of that in stop and go traffic. He put in a 240 V charging station in his garage and charges at night. He hardly can keep the vehicle charged for the weekly usage. with the nightly charge He needs the additional time on the weekend for charging to keep it going during the week. On the weekends they mostly use their ICE vehicle.

 

[Woodznutz]

EV's have their place, as limited use commuter vehicles. They will never be 'all purpose' vehicles.

 

[elektra]

Inefficient has no place in this world, beings hiw you are selling electric cars to prevent pollution.

California is not fine

Industry is leaving or shutting in california, no electricity or two expensive, then there is AB 22

Electricity is not fine in california. No state uses more electricity than california. California brags it is the 6th largest economy in the world yet it can not provide the electricity it needs.

Proof, our produce that comes out of california has doubled in price.

California is destroyed, borrowing money hides the facts, fake news hides the facts.

 

[westwall]

You cannot be serious.

Yeah, I can. I look at raw data, you look at computer derived fiction. There are pictures taken of shorelines and cliffs all over the world starting 100 years ago.

Look at those pics, and look at the same places today and there is no sea level rise.

The raw data for temp shows a slight cooling worldwide. The climatogists take that raw data, and run it through a computer model to change it to warming.

Those are facts.

We know you people don't do facts.

 

[Woodznutz]

.

Look at those pics, and look at the same places today and there is no sea level rise.

Tell that to people around world where sea levels are rising.

 

[westwall]

Tell that to people around world where sea levels are rising.

Point to a place. The Maldives are supposed to be underwater soon. Correct?

If that is so why have corporations invested billions in building international airports to bring tourists there.

If the claims were true no one with an ounce of brains would pour money down that drowning rat hole.

Now would they.

 

[elektra]

Tell that to people around world where sea levels are rising.

There are no places the sea is rising. If you think so post more than your propaganda learned opinion. That way we can have fun ripping it apart, again, and again.

There are many sea level threads, all refuted.

 

[elektra]

And what does extracting oil do to the environment?

Build millions upon millions of wind turbines and solar panels. Which as you just stated, destroys the environment

 

[Woodznutz]

Yeah, I can. I look at raw data, you look at computer derived fiction. There are pictures taken of shorelines and cliffs all over the world starting 100 years ago.

Look at those pics, and look at the same places today and there is no sea level rise.

The raw data for temp shows a slight cooling worldwide. The climatogists take that raw data, and run it through a computer model to change it to warming.

Those are facts.

We know you people don't do facts.

Measurements are taken at high tide levels, therefore your pictures may not be showing increased rise if taken at lower tide levels. Also, sea level rise isn't uniform around the globe. Many coastal cities are already having to deal with higher than normal tides. Most of the higher levels are due to thermal expansion, which proves that the globe is warming.

 

[westwall]

Measurements are taken at high tide levels, therefore your pictures may not be showing increased rise if taken at lower tide levels. Also, sea level rise isn't uniform around the globe. Many coastal cities are already having to deal with higher than normal tides. Most of the higher levels are due to thermal expansion, which proves that the globe is warming.

Don't be silly. The photo's are always taken at similar tide states.

 

[Woodznutz]

There are no places the sea is rising. If you think so post more than your propaganda learned opinion. That way we can have fun ripping it apart, again, and again.

There are many sea level threads, all refuted.

Post yours.

 

[Woodznutz]

Don't be silly. The photo's are always taken at similar tide states.

Similar sea level?

 

[westwall]

Similar sea level?

Yes, that is the whole point. Comparison photos are used by scientists for many kinds of research so they are scrupulous about ensuring similar tide states and sea states.

 

[Woodznutz]

There are pictures taken of shorelines and cliffs all over the world starting 100 years ago.

Look at those pics, and look at the same places today and there is no sea level rise.

Like this one?

Photos of water at Sydney Harbor fort do not refute sea level rise

False. Sea levels at that site have risen and continue to rise, measurements show. Additionally, historical photographs used to support the claim are not a reliable indicator of rising sea levels, scientists say.

apnews.com

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes, that is the whole point. Comparison photos are used by scientists for many kinds of research so they are scrupulous about ensuring similar tide states and sea states.

I have to believe the general scientific consensus, not the debunkers.

 

[Concerned American]

Not really
Who wants a limited range rolling fire hazard ..I mean really

There’s nothing new here, but it acts as a good reminder of just bad lithium mining is for the environment:

Electric vehicles are promoted as the solution for combating “climate change.” Governments are currently incentivizing the production of electric vehicles, while punishing the fossil fuel industry. However, lithium mining for electric vehicles is incredibly destructive to the environment, and is about as far from “green” as one could imagine. Not to mention, most of the lithium-ion batteries produced today come from China and require water-intensive mining operations that ravage natural environments throughout Australia, Argentina and Chile. The process depletes ground water, and leaves behind toxic wastewater that contaminates fields and harms wildlife. The mining process is not carbon dioxide free, either. The mining process releases 15,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions for every ton of lithium that is extracted.

LITHIUM mining for electric vehicles is incredibly destructive to the environment and about as far from "green" as you can imagine

By Paul Homewood There’s nothing new here, but it acts as a good reminder of just bad lithium mining is for the environment: Electric vehicles are promoted as the solutio…

notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com

I live on rural acreage and have myriad pieces of equipment. My biggest headache is keeping the batteries charged. I keep a charging station with no fewer than five batteries charging at any given time. Batteries are an EXPENSIVE pain in the posterior.

 

[westwall]

I have to believe the general scientific consensus, not the debunkers.

Consensus isn't science. Consensus is the language of politics.

Not science.

 

[westwall]

Like this one?

Photos of water at Sydney Harbor fort do not refute sea level rise

False. Sea levels at that site have risen and continue to rise, measurements show. Additionally, historical photographs used to support the claim are not a reliable indicator of rising sea levels, scientists say.

apnews.com

No, the best series is from Sunrise Cliffs in San Diego. Scripps has been compiling them for decades.