Posted on 09/25/2015 9:08:18 AM PDT by artichokegrower
We understand the fundamental imperative of the oil industry and gasoline- and diesel-powered automakers. Money and market share are powerful motivators.
In the recent assault on legislation to cut petroleum use by half, an oil industry front called California Drivers Alliance homed in on an especially rich and easy target: Tesla, the high-performance, high-cost cars that are largely California-made.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
So all Teslas are recharged by solar or wind produced electricity.
Ping.
Just so. If you do a full analysis, electric cars use MORE fossil fuels than gas cars, because it takes fossil fuels to produce the electricity.
Even if you use solar cells, you are just diverting those very expensive gadgets from producing electricity for something else.
And making and disposing of solar cells is also wasteful.
And on, and on, and on.
Also it’s a $100,000 plus car that receives in California a $10,000 subsidy from the taxpayers and contributes nothing to the road maintenance tax. Owners are a bunch of rich parasites feeding at the public trough.
While it’s overstated, don’t underestimate how much more pollution individual ICE cars generate vs electrical power plants which can scrub their emissions on an industrial scale.
Yes, EV owners are quite aware that they’re not running perfectly clean vehicles. Still a lot better than gas-powered cars.
And yes there’s pollution in making the vehicles themselves. Get back to me with quantified measurements, vs vague “batteries are dirtier to make than gas engines” et al.
Methinks those “rich taxpayer” have contributed more than their fair share of taxes, and are (deliberately or not) leveraging the tax credit to get some of their money back.
I’m all for reducing taxes, including using every deduction possible. (Not to be confused with “refundable tax credits”.) You DO/WOULD take the mortgage interest credit, right? or is that “parasites feeding at the public trough”?
LOL! A couple of the casino here in Reno are ponying up some “zero emissions” teslas. Well, zero emissions only to a point. Were there any emissions during the build process? Are there any lubricants required? Any petroleum based tires? Disposal costs of batteries. Replacement costs of batteries. Odd thing is that quite a few of the casinos are also installing charging stations for these. Haven’t seen any of them installing gas pumps for the patrons. Weird huh?
Replacing the 30-lb lead battery in my newly evil 2003 VW Beetle Turbo yesterday made me wonder why someone hasn’t come out with lithium replacement batteries for regular cars.
I suppose the EPA is waiting for Tesla’s giant battery factory to go into operation before they mandate unleaded batteries.
The hostility toward oil companies is misplaced. Gasoline-powered transportation has revolutionized the world and has set even the poorest of the poor free in a way nothing else ever could.
Any policy based on worrying about greenhouse gases is mistaken if not fraudulent.
But I’m not going to join in the attack on Tesla. Yes, an electric car uses electricity generated by fossil fuels. But since I’m not against fossil fuels that doesn’t bother me. I don’t care about the carbon generated for the same reason. Pollution, which I do care about, is tightly controlled at the point of generation, so there is an improvement there.
The fact that an electric car doesn’t pay road taxes doesn’t bother me. If you want to encourage some development, you offer a tax break. If people take advantage of the tax break, its traditional to demonize them for doing what you wanted them to do when you offered the tax break.
The fact that the initial cars are very expensive is also traditional with new technology. The rich always pay the initial high prices on anything, which helps to get the new technology off the ground. As they work out manufacturing issues, the prices come down. As other competitors get into the business, the prices come down. Eventually you can get a VCR for $19 at Walmart.
The old Teslas are $100k. The next generation will be $35k. When Toyota starts really competing who knows what happens then. The problem here isn’t Tesla, the problem is government trying to use its power to commit suicide at (as always) the peoples’ expense and for the stupidest and most fraudulent of reasons.
Those electric motors have a tremendous amount of torque. Who cares if they save on pollution?
Lithium car batteries.
Here is your answer, do you see why it isn’t happening.
http://www.jegs.com/p/Lithium-Pros/Lithium-Pros-12-Volt-Lithium-Batteries/1770167/10002/-1
Yes, EV owners are quite aware that they’re not running perfectly clean vehicles. Still a lot better than gas-powered cars.
And yes there’s pollution in making the vehicles themselves. Get back to me with quantified measurements, vs vague “batteries are dirtier to make than gas engines” et al.
And you have just hit on one of my big beefs with the “green industry”.
Very few (none?) facts exist on the lifetime emissions of all of these options. If cars cost more because of the technology, it's probable that more “stuff”, and hence energy, went into making them.
The greenies need to publish entire life-cycle analyses. Solar panels are a good example - how much Chinese pollution was generated in their manufacture?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.