Inconvenient Facts (About Electric Vehicles)

President Joe Biden promotes them, saying things like, "The great American road trip is going to be fully electrified" and, "There's no turning back."

To make sure we have no choice in the matter, some left-leaning states have moved to ban gas-powered cars altogether.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order banning them by 2035. Oregon, Massachusetts and New York copied California. Washington state's politicians said they'd make it happen even faster, by 2030.

In my new video, I point out some "inconvenient" facts about electric cars, simple truths that politicians and green activists just don't seem to understand.

"Electric cars are amazing," says physicist Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute. "But they won't change the future in any significant way (as far as) oil use or carbon dioxide emissions."

"The world has 15, 18 million electric vehicles now," says Mills. "If we (somehow) get to 500 million, that would reduce world oil consumption by about 10%. That's not nothing, but it doesn't end the use of oil."

Most of the world's oil is used by things like "airplanes, buses, big trucks and the mining equipment that gets the copper to build the electric cars."

Even if all vehicles somehow did switch to electricity, there's another problem: Electricity isn't very green.

I laugh talking to friends who are all excited about their electric car, assuming it doesn't pollute. They go silent when I ask, "Where does your car's electricity come from?"

They don't know. They haven't even thought about it.

Inconvenient fact 2: Although driving an electric car puts little additional carbon into the air, producing the electricity to charge its battery adds plenty. Most of America's electricity is produced by burning natural gas and coal. Just 12% comes from wind or solar power.

Auto companies don't advertise that. "Electric vehicles in general are better and more sustainable for the environment," says Ford's Linda Zhang in a BBC interview.

"She's a Ford engineer," I say to Mills. "She's not ignorant."

"She's not stupid," he replies. "But ignorance speaks to what you know. You have to mine, somewhere on earth, 500,000 pounds of minerals and rock to make one battery."

American regulations make mining difficult, so most of it is done elsewhere, polluting those countries. Some mining is done by children. Some is done in places that use slave labor.

Even if those horrors didn't exist, mining itself adds lots of carbon to the air.

"If you're worried about carbon dioxide," says Mills, "the electric vehicle has emitted 10 to 20 tons of carbon dioxide (from the mining, manufacturing and shipping) before it even gets to your driveway."

"Volkswagen published an honest study (in which they) point out that the first 60,000 miles or so you're driving an electric vehicle, that electric vehicle will have emitted more carbon dioxide than if you just drove a conventional vehicle."

You would have to drive an electric car "100,000 miles" to reduce emissions by just "20 or 30%, which is not nothing, but it's not zero."

No, it's not.

If you live in New Zealand, where there's lots of hydro and geothermal power, electric cars pollute less. But in America, your "zero-emission vehicle" adds lots of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

Politicians and electric car sellers don't mention that. Most probably don't even know.

In a future column, three more inconvenient facts about electric cars.

The politicians run for office on IMAGE. The image people have is that electric cars have lower emissions. I really don’t see that changing. One could hope that the facts (as discussed in the article) would make a difference but it just isn’t happening.

And, the most basic question of all goes unasked and unanswered: Where is the clean energy coming from to build and operate our electric cars? The answer is:

a. Something will come up.
b. I have no idea.

"I laugh talking to friends who are all excited about their electric car, assuming it doesn't pollute."

EVs still need to be pioneered and "domesticated" imo.

In the meanwhile, they seem to be a form of "follow the unconstitutional, desperate Democratic federal spending," junk science escapism.

Solving The Ozone Problem Caused By Electric Cars (non-FR; 4.18.2011)
The Benefits And Risks Of Electric Cars (ozone risk; non-FR; 10.22.22)

An additinal negative, this one concerning EV battries not holding charge too well in cold weather, is that testing is showing that batteries also take longer to charge in cold weather.

EV CHARGING IN COLD TEMPERATURES COULD POSE CHALLENGES FOR DRIVERS (non-FR; 7.30.2018)

Also, if I understand this correctly, ozone is a secondary pollutant from fossil fuel-based electric power plants, ozone formed when primary polutants interact with sunlight.

"Ozone is one of the most difficult pollutants to control because it is not directly emitted. Instead, dangerous compounds and nitrous oxides released from vehicles, power plants, landfills and other biomass and fossil fuel burning facilities react with sunlight to form this secondary pollutant." How Ozone Pollution is Destroying Plants (non-FR; 5.21.2020)

Corrections, insights welcome.

This video explores the required materials to complete the transition from fossil fuels to the “green economy”. It’s basically an engineering feasibility study. It’s reasonably thorough.

The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels, is much larger than first thought. Current mining production of these metals is not even close to meeting demand. Current reported mineral reserves are also not enough in size. Most concerning is copper as one of the flagged shortfalls. Exploration for more at required volumes will be difficult, with this seminar addressing these issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBVmnKuBocc

No, but they are pointing to it as a major culprit in WARMING the Planet, thus causing the ice caps to melt and the oceans to rise, eventually flooding our cities and making them uninhabitable (while many of them actually LIVE near the ocean).

I doubt that I need to point out to you that sea levels have not been rising at a rate any faster than they did during the previous 500 years. In other words there is plenty of time to plan for that IF sea levels continue to rise in the future. And of course, it was actually warmer in the continental United States than it was in the 1930s which can be confirmed by looking at historical temperature records, especially from weather recording sites that were not surrounded new by development during that time period. (The urban heat island effect is real.)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/26/lets-talk-about-real-climate-cataclysms/

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.