The EV fact thread

[SmartAmg]

I saw this info on another site and have absolutely no idea it it’s correct or some anti EV BS. Does anyone know if it’s right or not?

Electric cars don't pollute, sure?
"The stupidity of the human being!
Here you have the Tesla battery.
To produce it you need to excavate:
12 tons. of rock by lithi
5 tons. of cobalt minerals
3 t. from mineral to nickel
12 tons. of copper mineral
Need to move 250 tons. of land to obtain:
12 kg of lithium
13.6 kg of nickel
22 kg of manganese
6.8 kg of cobalt
100 kg of run
200 kg of aluminum, steel and plastic.
The Caterpillar 994A used to move this earth consumes 1000 litres of diesel in 12 hours.
Here you have the "zero emissions" car.
The biggest scam in history."

That's possibly all true, don't really know. Only going off what's read or watched. But the end product the EV Car, doesn't pollute. God knows what's involved in getting crude oil out of the ground, then refining it, then transporting it. etc etc etc. And the end product the ICE Car, still pollutes.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Most of that, or similar, applies to ICE cars to....and they carry on producing pollution for the rest of there life...where as the EV will only produce a tiny bit depending how the electricity was made. Taking everything into account...so that making, using, disposing of....an EV produces way less pollution and emissions and carbon in it life than any ICE car. I don't like EVs....but that the fact of the matter....and obviously the reason why we are going that way in the first place.

 

[markjay]

I saw this info on another site and have absolutely no idea it it’s correct or some anti EV BS. Does anyone know if it’s right or not?

Electric cars don't pollute, sure?
"The stupidity of the human being!
Here you have the Tesla battery.
To produce it you need to excavate:
12 tons. of rock by lithi
5 tons. of cobalt minerals
3 t. from mineral to nickel
12 tons. of copper mineral
Need to move 250 tons. of land to obtain:
12 kg of lithium
13.6 kg of nickel
22 kg of manganese
6.8 kg of cobalt
100 kg of run
200 kg of aluminum, steel and plastic.
The Caterpillar 994A used to move this earth consumes 1000 litres of diesel in 12 hours.
Here you have the "zero emissions" car.
The biggest scam in history."

It's BS.

Firstly, zero exhaust emissions has huge health benefits for the public, even before considering the planet.

Then, these figures are always misleadingly provided without context. The question that is being cleverly avoided is "compared to what?".

The Iraq-Iran war over oilfields back in the eighties took the lives of over a million people, many of whom were children that the Iranians sent to clear Iraqi minefields. And how many people died during the American wars in Iraq in 1991 and 2003? And how many human right violations - including executions and public beheadings, as well as flogging of women - were carried out by Gulf countries' governments propped up by trillions of oil dollars from Western countries?

Then, what's the pollution footprint of oil fields? Of oil rigs in the North Sea? Of oil tankers sailing all around the world? Of oil refineries (Grangemouth alone refines 10 million tonnes of crude per year, and it's not even the biggest in the UK), of thousands of underground storage tanks in petrol stations around the country, of used engine oil going into the water aquifer because of back street garages and careless DIY? Etc etc.

No siree, you won't hear any of that from the EV- bashers brigade, because according to them the world was absolutely fine until one Mr Musk decided to destroy the planet by mining Cobalt for his car batteries. The selfish barsteward....

 

[ChipChop]

Most of that, or similar, applies to ICE cars to....and they carry on producing pollution for the rest of there life...where as the EV will only produce a tiny bit depending how the electricity was made. Taking everything into account...so that making, using, disposing of....an EV produces way less pollution and emissions and carbon in it life than any ICE car. I don't like EVs....but that the fact of the matter....and obviously the reason why we are going that way in the first place.

Apart of course for ICE vehicles ran on bio fuels which should be considered carbon neutral because their fuel is grown using the natural CO2 consuming process of photosynthesis.

 

[markjay]

Apart of course for ICE vehicles ran on bio fuels which should be considered carbon neutral because their fuel is grown using the natural CO2 consuming process of photosynthesis.

Theoretically, yes. But what percentage of cars on our roads tody are actually powered purely by biofuels? Not very many, would be my guess.

 

[ChipChop]

Theoretically, yes. But what percentage of cars on our roads tody are actually powered purely by biofuels? Not very many, would be my guess.

There is nothing theoretical about 'grown' fuels extracting CO2 thanks to photosynthesis.

UK pump diesel contains up to 7% bio content. Many modern commercial vehicles have engines designed to run on bio fuels or HVO100.

Approved by the leading manufacturers

www.neste.be

 

[clk320x]

Apart of course for ICE vehicles ran on bio fuels which should be considered carbon neutral because their fuel is grown using the natural CO2 consuming process of photosynthesis.

Except running biofuel still releases NoX and particulate matter.

Effects of Biodiesel on Emissions

dieselnet.com

 

[ChipChop]

Except running biofuel still releases NoX and particulate matter.

Effects of Biodiesel on Emissions

dieselnet.com

Few people outside of London drive in cities anymore. Not car friendly places at all. EV's produce particulates as well so maybe Londons EV drivers should use the many & various forms of public transport they have at their disposal, unlike the rest of the UK.

 

[markjay]

There is nothing theoretical about 'grown' fuels extracting CO2 thanks to photosynthesis.

UK pump diesel contains up to 7% bio content. Many modern commercial vehicles have engines designed to run on bio fuels or HVO100.

Approved by the leading manufacturers

www.neste.be

But only around 2% of worldwide oil production:

Global biofuel production by country 2022 | Statista

The United States was the leading biofuel producer in the world in 2022, with production amounting to 1,627 petajoules.

www.statista.com

I'd say it's still theoretical. When we find a way of growing significantly more biofuel without jeopardising food production and without upsetting the ecosystem, it will stop being theoretical. But until then.....

 

[markjay]

Few people outside of London drive in cities anymore. Not car friendly places at all. EV's produce particulates as well so maybe Londons EV drivers should use the many & various forms of public transport they have at their disposal, unlike the rest of the UK.

Yes, but there are a staggering 3.7 million car journeys made in London every day, according to TfL. Ignore it at your peril....

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Few people outside of London drive in cities anymore.

The traffic jams make me think that more people than ever drive in cities.

 

[BPD07]

One wonders, what the anti EV brigade on here are actually scared of? I cannot see how no tailpipe emissions cannot be a good thing. It is easier to smog filter a power station than x thousand cars, and you can always charge an EV from petrol/diesel/paraffin/wind/solar/hand crank generator. Of course, my 2nd hand EV cannot drive a thousand miles, stop fill up with diesel then drive another 1000. But I’m not sure the driver would be that safe to proceed anyway.

Now in the fifth year of running a BEV, on our 2nd used one and for our needs it works well, and yes we have ICE vehicles as well.

 

[190]

One wonders, what the anti EV brigade on here are actually scared of?

What they are scared of is not EV's in themselves but the witless political targets for their introduction based on ignorance and wishful thinking.


In the US Biden has got some stick for a similar unrealistic approach but this week the EPA reformulated US targets on a much more pragmatic basis to include a combination of pure EV's, hybrids and even ICE's. This is the sort of common sense approach that we need to win over anti EV sentiment. Once the public feel they are not being forced in to something they don't want the fear will subside.

From Scientific American

EPA’s original proposal to control greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles estimated that 67 percent of new passenger car sales would need to be electric in eight years.

The final version released Wednesday still leans on fully electric vehicles, but it makes room for plug-in hybrids and other types of cars that run on gas. EPA estimates that 56 percent of cars and light trucks will be fully electric by 2032 and 13 percent will be plug-in hybrids — which use a combination of batteries and gas. Other scenarios outlined by the agency show as few as 35 percent of sales being fully electric cars, along with 36 percent being plug-in hybrids. (The remainder would be internal combustion vehicles or hybrids without a plug-in option).


The Future of Driving in the U.S. Is Electric—Sort Of

 

[clk320x]

What they are scared of is not EV's in themselves but the witless political targets for their introduction based on ignorance and wishful thinking

Either buy one or not… political targets are just that… ‘targets’ - clearly they are working looking at how many new EVs are on the road, most company car drivers who do mega-miles are in EVs now. Second hand supply is plentiful for those who can’t afford new as the ex-leases flood the market. It’s a win win situation.

 

[BTB 500]

One wonders, what the anti EV brigade on here are actually scared of?

I suspect few are truly 'anti EV'. If they were cheaper and had better range then more people would buy them. There's also the question of lifespan - modern ICE vehicles will often happily do 150-200k miles over 15-20 years on the original engine & gearbox. You mentioned that you're on your second EV in under five years - not everybody can afford to keep replacing their vehicles.

I cannot see how no tailpipe emissions cannot be a good thing.

It's a good thing of course, particularly in cities. But if you live out in the middle of nowhere it makes no difference to anyone whether your car is low emission or zero emission.

Of course, my 2nd hand EV cannot drive a thousand miles, stop fill up with diesel then drive another 1000. But I’m not sure the driver would be that safe to proceed anyway.

More to the point though it would likely struggle to do 200 miles at motorway speeds (particularly in colder weather), which is a much more realistic requirement for many people.

and yes we have ICE vehicles as well.

Not everyone is in a position to own & run multiple vehicles though.

 

[markjay]

What they are scared of is not EV's in themselves but the witless political targets for their introduction based on ignorance and wishful thinking.


In the US Biden has got some stick for a similar unrealistic approach but this week the EPA reformulated US targets on a much more pragmatic basis to include a combination of pure EV's, hybrids and even ICE's. This is the sort of common sense approach that we need to win over anti EV sentiment. Once the public feel they are not being forced in to something they don't want the fear will subside.

From Scientific American

EPA’s original proposal to control greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles estimated that 67 percent of new passenger car sales would need to be electric in eight years.

The final version released Wednesday still leans on fully electric vehicles, but it makes room for plug-in hybrids and other types of cars that run on gas. EPA estimates that 56 percent of cars and light trucks will be fully electric by 2032 and 13 percent will be plug-in hybrids — which use a combination of batteries and gas. Other scenarios outlined by the agency show as few as 35 percent of sales being fully electric cars, along with 36 percent being plug-in hybrids. (The remainder would be internal combustion vehicles or hybrids without a plug-in option).


The Future of Driving in the U.S. Is Electric—Sort Of

So we have crafty politicians who make unrealistic 'green' policies that will bankrupt the country. OK, I get that.

Then, those who oppose these policies - on the grounds that they are sheer lunacy - make up all sorts of fantasy stories about how EVs will ruin the planet - because they want to halt these policies, and "all's fair in love and war", right? "The end justifies the means" etc - and so making up fictional 'facts' (and banging on about child labour in the DRC) are all for a good cause, and history will forgive them for fabricating evidence....

Well, my view is that if an argument can't be defended using real honest objective facts, then the argument is simply not worth defending at all.

 

[markjay]

Hybrid Jaguar goes 'rogue' and reverses into a Porsche

Business owner Andrew Key was powerless to act as his £47,000 Jaguar E-Pace suddenly reversed at speed into a Porsche Boxster parked behind him.

mol.im

 

[Petrol Pete]

Thank goodness no petrol car has ever caught fire.

They do catch fire but are relatively easy to put out. A basic fixed piped water fire suppressant system and the odd wall mounted personal use fire extinguisher normally does the trick ....not so much with an EV fire.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Hybrid Jaguar goes 'rogue' and reverses into a Porsche

Business owner Andrew Key was powerless to act as his £47,000 Jaguar E-Pace suddenly reversed at speed into a Porsche Boxster parked behind him.

mol.im

Except that according to its plate that not an EV!!!! The exploding radiator being a clue!

 

[SmartAmg]

Except that according to its plate that not an EV!!!! The exploding radiator being a clue!

That's why I take these reports with a pinch of salt. Or more to the point, total Bollox.