400 mile electric RV

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:


Green As Shanghai Coal?

I was in Beijing for a few days in 2016. I can attest that the photograph above is NOT an exaggeration.

Green As Shanghai Coal?

3 tons wrote:
You Sir just made dear ol’ Diogenes proud indeed, may he now end his quest to find an ‘Honest Man’!! :)

Will carry the lamp all day.

rlw999 wrote:
Doesn't that source agree? Is there any car on the road today that won't last 78,000 miles?

Yes, any car driven by my daughter.

She recently texted me, "I just did $5,000 of damage to my car, turning in to my driveway. In case anyone thought that I had changed."

time2roll wrote:
Never mind green... EVs are more fun to drive ;)

You Sir just made dear ol’ Diogenes proud indeed, may he now end his quest to find an ‘Honest Man’!! :)

3 tons

Timmo! wrote:
And Homey, BEVs are cool to drive....but, so are Hummers and dune buggies in the sand.

Not to worry Hummer is now an EV and dune buggies are going the same way. I assume the buggies are way more fun without the noise.

RTW, how many years will it take before the magic moment of "carbon parity" (aka breakeven point) occurs in a new BEV? The range of 70-100k miles seems to be the answer.

The talk is "buy a BEV and you're immediately greener than an ICE".

Unfortunately the walk is "since producing a BEV generates more carbon emissions than ICE vehicle production, it takes years before BEV is greener than an ICE; even more years if the the electricity is NOT generated from renewable sources."

Example, if a person only drives 5k miles per year and their BEV's breakeven is in the 70k-100k mile range, it will take 14-20 years before they reach carbon parity. 7-10 years if they drive 10k miles per year; until then they are carbon "stinkers".

Funny way of looking at it, huh?

And Homey, BEVs are cool to drive....but, so are Hummers and dune buggies in the sand.

Never mind green... EVs are more fun to drive ;)

Timmo! wrote:

rlw999 wrote:
...EV's are greener than fossil fuel powered cars, even when the power comes from coal...

I know your really believe that statement and many people talk as if it is true. But when unbiased science is applied, it ain't so.

From A NASDAQ analysis titled, "ANALYSIS-When do electric vehicles become cleaner than gasoline cars?"


...It was up against a gasoline-fueled Toyota Corolla weighing 2,955 pounds with a fuel efficiency of 33 miles per gallon. It was assumed both vehicles would travel 173,151 miles during their lifetimes.

But if the same Tesla was being driven in Norway, which generates almost all its electricity from renewable hydropower, the break-even point would come after just 8,400 miles.

If the electricity to recharge the EV comes entirely from coal, which generates the majority of the power in countries such as China and Poland, you would have to drive 78,700 miles to reach carbon parity with the Corolla, according to the Reuters analysis of data generated by Argonne's model....

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/analysis-when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29

Doesn't that source agree? Is there any car on the road today that won't last 78,000 miles?

rlw999 wrote:

3 tons wrote:
At best, a Forbes Opinion writer (or any other cherry picked ‘green theologian’) merely offers his anecdotal account repeat with bias (opinion is bias) in no way a substitute for objective empirical independent study…Before adopting such policies, where’s the independent peer reviewed study??

Don't pretend you'd accept peer reviewed research when you'll just dismiss it with "Be advised that Universities routinely compete for Gov’t Grant moola ($$ cash cow) by willingly contracting to substantiate what’s often and essential a politically preordained outcome"

Where's your peer reviewed research backing your claims?

Ha, there’s no need to impute my feelings (a ‘don’t like the message, discredit the messenger’ thingy), when I’ve merely brought to your attention the lacking of such peer reviewed study…One might think that BEFORE arriving at ANY particular public policy, it quite naturally would be preceded by a cogent objective study (something beyond a magazine story), where the various scientific opinions could be aired, thus one would think that it too would be in your camp’s interest to advocate for such to help bolster your particular point of view…What ever happened to “Follow the science”??

3 tons