Posted on 01/20/2023 8:32:44 AM PST by SeekAndFind
All-electric battery vehicles (BEVs) have become all the rage, particularly with the political class, who see them as a magical means to combat climate change. We know, of course, there is no such thing as magic. But that won’t stop politicians from making proclamations, followed by policies that bring about bad, even destructive, results.
Climate science is highly complex, as the Earth has gone through many warming and cooling periods over billions of years with widely varying amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere long before man arrived on the scene. I have no reason to doubt the global climate is warming, and that humans are significant contributors. But the crusade to end gasoline-powered vehicles by forcing consumers to purchase BEVs is as simpleminded as it is unscientific.
With respect to CO2 emissions, it is true that BEVs, overall, have a distinct emissions advantage over conventional gasoline-powered vehicles. Yet politicians seeking to ban the purchase of conventional gasoline-powered vehicles, as has become law in California beginning in 2035 and soon to be followed in Washington state, Oregon, Massachusetts, and New York, have made the gross mistake of pursuing a policy prescription without thought to the environmental, economic, and logistical issues their policies will create. This is not to say BEVs can’t be a part of combating climate change. But they shouldn’t be the only solution when it comes to vehicle emissions.
In the policy push toward BEVs, little consideration has been given to the benefits of an attractive alternative: hybrid vehicles, which also deliver significantly lower CO2 emissions relative to conventional gasoline-powered vehicles. Hybrid vehicles come in two forms: hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), such as the well-known Toyota Prius, and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), such as the Toyota Prius Prime.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, about 2,817 pounds of well-to-wheel CO2 equivalent is produced over the lifetime of the average BEV. The average PHEV, on the other hand, generates 1,884 pounds of well-to-wheel CO2 equivalent from electric operation and 2,939 pounds of CO2 emissions from gasoline operation, for a total of 4,824 pounds of CO2 equivalent. While 70% more CO2 equivalent than a BEV, this is still about 62% less than a conventional gasoline-powered vehicle. Thus, there are considerable CO2 emissions savings with PHEVs, and it shouldn’t be ignored that even HEVs produce 45% lower overall CO2 emissions than conventional gasoline engines. The question is how much CO2 savings is enough? Politicians give us no clear answer while ignoring the environmental impact of their all-BEV push.
Just buy a really long cord.
No ICE maintenance is a YUUUGe part of the EV benefit-
No oil changes
No pricey Catalytic Connverters ( just scrapped a trusty beater-with-a-heater because a replacement CARB compliant Cat was 3 times the value if the car)
the list goes on-
Having both is an expensive redundency lots of EV fans don’t need, and don’t want.
EV is NOT for everyone, in every circumstance. But for lots of folks, it’s a really groovy way to go.
I believe with an ev you’re trading relatively cheap periodic maintenance for a jumbo bill when the battery pack is used up. So a lot will depend on resale value down the road once we get millions of vehicles with long term experience.
Climate change politics, ia about politics and about control of the economy and of people. Kinda similar to the Covid vaccine mandates and spending associated with that.
The climate changes, and then changes again. NOTHING humans can do will change the fact that the climate is always changing.
We cannot control climate, but we can make our vehicles cleaner, and that doesn’t include going electric all the time.
The people pushing climate change politics and policies, are almost all from the left-side of political spectrum. The majority of people don’t care about the issue, and the only ones that ‘care’ are those that are easily duped into believing the hoax science. If it’s science, why is it that it’s politicians that are shoving it down our throats? Why not have the scientists from all sides of the ‘science’, do a documentary on TV presenting their views and showing us the exact science that backs up the junk science?
When it comes to the type of power that drives vehicles, I will always prefer ICE driven ones. EVs can’t compare in range or price or practicality.
RE: EV is NOT for everyone, in every circumstance. But for lots of folks, it’s a really groovy way to go.
I can live without groovy. I want RELIABILITY to get me to where I want to go. PERIOD.
Can EV compete with ICE or Hybrids without government subsidies?
It seems that having two power producers in a car is a huge extra cost, but (1) the cost maybe for quite some time far less than the cost of on-board batteries and (2) there are always applications where a conventional fill-up will make sense.
I believe that in cold weather, rural situations, and where there’s a need for all-day, heavy fuel usage a PHEV will make sense.
“EV is NOT for everyone, in every circumstance. But for lots of folks, it’s a really groovy way to go.”
It’s unlikely that I’ll ever own an EV if I’m not forced into it. However, I can appreciate the technology, and I’m a firm believer in more than just one solution to energy use.
If everyone has an EV, the grid will fall on it’s face. So, let those who want an EV get an EV. Let those of us who are comfortable with with ICE continue to own one.
Liberal view:
Doesn’t electricity come out of a wall?
Just install a socket, problem solved!
No they can’t.
EV’s are a great idea, nothing is wrong with powering something with electricity.
It’s been done since 1837 with trains and trolleys.
The problem is the battery. We need a less expensive, faster charging and longer lasting battery.
Without a new battery of some type EV’s are not the solution.
I don’t appreciate the “technology” of EV. That is because it is inferior to ICE and much more expensive. If an EV was superior to ICE, it would not require Government subsides and mandates to use. Nobody subsidized or mandate other forms of technology (cell phones, PC/laptops, etc), because people choose to adopt the technology because they perceived benefits that outweigh the costs. Not so with EV.
Ping
Not much discussion of hybrids here yet. Anybody own a hybrid and what are the virtues and drawbacks of the charging modes?
If one is worried about CO2 (and I confess I’m not), agonizing over American auto emissions while ignoring coal-fired power plants in China and India is like focusing on a hangnail while ignoring a patch of melanoma. US CO2 emissions have modestly decreased over the past couple of decades; they’ve more than doubled in China, and went up a good bitl in India as well - both countries continue to build coal-fired power plants at a signiicant rate, with no end in sight.
The battery and everything else about an EV would be a lot cheaper without the government subsidy.
All my $7,500 EV tax credit did was artificially inflate the price of the EV I bought. Basically I paid more up front so the government would give it back to me later in the hope that I'd think the government was doing me a favor. Even my fellow EV owners (most of whom are hard core leftists) can see it now.
As soon as the Inflation Raising Act was passed last year, EV prices went up for EV's made by car makers who previously didn't have a credit. (The old EV tax credit rule says a buyer couldn't get the tax credit if the EV maker had already sold 200K cars -- new EV's made by Tesla and GM didn't get the credit. The new law removes the 200K limit.) My EV would have received the old tax credit anyway, so my EV was already inflated $7,500 even before the Inflation Raising Act was passed.
About needing a "...faster charging and longer lasting battery."
At a fast road charger my EV takes 10-15 minutes to charge to 80%, which is a hair over 200 miles unless I want drive slower highway speeds or wait longer to charge past 80%. That's good enough for my wife and me since my wife likes to stop every 200 miles or so anyway to walk around. But to be honest, if I was to go on a trip without my wife I'd probably take my ICE pickup so I can go further than 200 miles between stops. Having both an EV and an ICE car gives us the best of both worlds. Too bad the Dims don't like us having options like that.
A plug in hybrids has been a great vehicle for us.
What does it by you, the first two miles before the internal combustion engine has to turn on to recharge the battery?
-PJ
Stop it. The whole thing is a hoax.
No one should give a crap about CO2 levels for two reasons. First, CO2 is a plant nutrient and not a pollutant and second reason is the current CO2 level of 440PPM leaves a whole lot of room for more CO2. A LOT MORE.
Don't make public policy based on a hoax.
PS: The climate is always getting a little hotter Y over Y coming out of an ice age.
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.