The Simple Truth: The electric car people want, produces MORE CO2 than a gas powered car.

[iamwhatiseem]

Wind, hydro and solar make up a percentage of the average US mix of energy sources. Those are what we call renewable


and it clearly says other FOSSIL / renewable no fossil fuel is renewable.

The other FOSSIL fuel besides coal is natural gas

I am not that familiar with you, so I am trying to figure out if you are just being obtuse or just don't listen to what someone is saying to you.

Rueters "assumption" - 23% coal-fired, plus other fossil fuels and renewables
That is not specifically broken down. 23% coal plus other .... renewables" - okay - what other renewables? and what percentage did they assume? The only percentage they list specifically is coal. "Plus other" does not define.
And again, TED is known worldwide as a reliable source of information. They independently check out speakers data to be sure they are accurate.
Reuters doesn't do that, and their data is way off of other claims. So yeah - I don't buy it.

 

[Blues Man]

I am not that familiar with you, so I am trying to figure out if you are just being obtuse or just don't listen to what someone is saying to you.

Rueters "assumption" - 23% coal-fired, plus other fossil fuels and renewables
That is not specifically broken down. 23% coal plus other .... renewables" - okay - what other renewables? and what percentage did they assume? The only percentage they list specifically is coal. "Plus other" does not define.
And again, TED is known worldwide as a reliable source of information. They independently check out speakers data to be sure they are accurate.
Reuters doesn't do that, and their data is way off of other claims. So yeah - I don't buy it.

The article clearly states the AVERAGE US MIX which includes coal, OTHER FOSSIL FUELS and renewables.

The renewables that are included in THE AVERAGE US MIX of power are hydro, wind and solar.

again

Power scenario 2: U.S. average energy mix (23% coal-fired, plus other fossil fuels and renewables)

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The article clearly states the AVERAGE US MIX which includes coal, OTHER FOSSIL FUELS and renewables.

The renewables that are included in THE AVERAGE US MIX of power are hydro, wind and solar.

again

Power scenario 2: U.S. average energy mix (23% coal-fired, plus other fossil fuels and renewables)

Yeah... you are just not listening

 

[Blues Man]

Yeah... you are just not listening

you're not reading

 

[Captain Caveman]

Some of us (I would like to say most of us, but that is not true) have read or seen stories on the "EV lie".
That EVs are "Zero emissions". Which is 100% incorrect. That would assume that an EV appears on the showroom floor magically.
The battery simply appeared by Genies.
The fact is, the manufacturing of a current EV produces DOUBLE the amount of CO2 as an gas vehicle.
So much so, that you have to drive an EV between 80,000 - 90,000 miles before you start to make up for how much CO2 it took to make that car.
And from there.... it actually get's worse.
Everyone wants to extend the range of the EVs. And that is the problem. If you go out and buy an EV that has as much as a 200 mile range - you will never be able to drive it enough to produce LESS CO2 than if you bought a gas powered vehicle.
Reason being. It takes more battery capacity to extend the range. And making EV batteries is a very, very environmentally polluting exercise.

But this is the thing with Alarmists claims on EV's, it covers a tiny part of the picture, so they pick the good part and gloat.

There are two statements they make. The first being, "It's cheaper to refuel an EV compared to an ICE vehicle. On it's own, yes. But if you factor in the wallet busting extra to buy an EV, then £5,000 to recycle the battery before taking it to the scrap yard, you need to do over 200,000 miles before any savings kick in.

The second one is, "EV's emit much less co2". On it's own, correct. But when the EU commissioned a study, if you took the co2 to manufacture, run and dispose of an EV and ICE vehicle over the average lifespan of a car, your carbon footprint only reduced by 17% to 30%. It depended on which size battery etc.. you went for. So with that small co2 saving, which they claim, "It's a start", they've kept quiet on factoring in the co2 footprint of manufacturing and installing all the new infrastructure that they need to keep these toys on the road.

They're just better off just shooting 6 farting cows a year then mess on with these useless battery cars.

 

[krichton]

But this is the thing with Alarmists claims on EV's, it covers a tiny part of the picture, so they pick the good part and gloat.

There are two statements they make. The first being, "It's cheaper to refuel an EV compared to an ICE vehicle. On it's own, yes. But if you factor in the wallet busting extra to buy an EV, then £5,000 to recycle the battery before taking it to the scrap yard, you need to do over 200,000 miles before any savings kick in.

The second one is, "EV's emit much less co2". On it's own, correct. But when the EU commissioned a study, if you took the co2 to manufacture, run and dispose of an EV and ICE vehicle over the average lifespan of a car, your carbon footprint only reduced by 17% to 30%. It depended on which size battery etc.. you went for. So with that small co2 saving, which they claim, "It's a start", they've kept quiet on factoring in the co2 footprint of manufacturing and installing all the new infrastructure that they need to keep these toys on the road.

They're just better off just shooting 6 farting cows a year then mess on with these useless battery cars.

Most ppl who buy Evs can afford it in the first place. These are not econo cars.

I guess they don't sell used cars where you come from. Here in the states there is a used car market and EVs, like the Tesla have a very high resale value if you choose to sell yours, even with a dead battery, which more and more shops are able to fix now. However, if the battery is still good, you're possibly looking at getting back 75% of your money. Even if you paid extra for your EV, you'll likely to see a lot of it come back to you when you sell it. I wonder if the same can be said for a lot of ICE cars. This whole "cost" to dispose of your car is a new one. I've never known anyone to pay to "dispose" of their car, unless maybe it was a complete piece of shit to begin with, in which case, they might just leave it somewhere to be vandalized or stolen, if that's even possible.

As to the topic. I disagree with the whole premise. Our electrical grid, which uses fossil fuels a;ready exists for our daily electrical needs. Evs are simply taking advantage of it. We would be burning fossil fuels to supply it even if Evs didn't exist. Am I wrong here?