Contradictions with EV’s

From my perspective, the video’s subject matter added a degree of objectivity to a popularized narrative that heretofore (minus critical examination) has merely been afforded the presumption of truth…Regarding spurious claims of ‘Net Carbon’ reduction, skepticism seems a scarce attribute …If EV’s TRULY do reduce ‘net carbon’ output (not unlike calls of “WMD”), it would seem that one might welcome a further examination to help make their point…

3 tons

pianotuna wrote:
2000 parts vs 20.

Blue hydrogen is not a good solution.

I'm reminded of the two keyboard layouts. Ascii vs Dvorak.

Dvorak is better once there are no mechanical linkages to jamb, but Ascii has dominated the market.

And I am reminded that many really need to re-read something

ASCII is the character encoding for transmission IE: A=$65

QWERTY is they keyboard.

And as for mechanical linkages. No, they can both be Mechanical or all electronic you can actually make a keyboard with ZERO moving parts but it would be tricky .. Well we call it a touch screen.

2000 parts vs 20.

Blue hydrogen is not a good solution.

I'm reminded of the two keyboard layouts. Ascii vs Dvorak.

Dvorak is better once there are no mechanical linkages to jamb, but Ascii has dominated the market.

I think hybrids are super useful for some people’s needs. They check a lot of boxes and for many are a way of reducing fuel costs and still allow access to more remote areas with poor charging infrastructure. Having said that I think BEV’s will outsell them probably 2 to 1 or more in the next decade. Many of us just need the advantages that they bring to the more remote traveller. For us our road trips are seldom over about 700 kilometres and in reality are mostly under 500 kilometres so the hybrid advantage is lost to us. Plus most if not all our travels are in areas well served by Superchargers and other DC fast charge infrastructure. And of course like most BEV owners 90 percent of our charging is done at home where it’s super cheap. For us, the advantages of BEV’s outweigh hybrids. But everyone has different needs and wants. Drive what you like and works for you.

I think companies that have a good product line up of both hybrid and BEV’s will do well. Those that are slow to figure out where the market is going will be gone by 2035.

I have been saying for years that the analysis on EV's is flawed to support the narrative. CO2 aside, EV's rely on caustic chemicals to manufacture and produce (so do solar panels), are environmentally damaging in harvesting the materials used to make them, and no one has come up with a long term plan for all these batteries at the end of their life which are essentially hazardous waste. Hardly green. And what about modern diesel engines? Diesel fuel is less refined and produces less CO2 than gasoline engines. Diesel also has greater efficiency at producing power. They also last longer than gas engines. Not saying they are the cats meow but why aren't they ever considered in this debate? Is it the cost to produce vs gas engines?

Quite misleading.

At about 3 years a Bev becomes carbon neutral compared to an ice. That number used to be 5 years.

The expected life time is a crock when it relies on mileage. I've owned 3 cars since 1992 none of them were new.

There are at least 2 Bev's that have integrated solar panels. For my own particular use pattern, I would essentially never have to plug in unless I were on a trip of over 300 miles.

Well, it also points to the need to be a bit skeptical of popular narratives, and it suggest just how powerful the impact of tax subsidies (as is commonplace with home mortgages, etc…) and their ability to drive social trends…Maybe these well intended subsidies should be re-evaluated and re-directed towards hybrids?? BTW, F-1 racing already recognizes the advantage of hybrid technology to instantaneously spin-up turbos, etc!

3 tons

wanderingaimlessly wrote:
Another overlooked issue is disposal, the batteries in the EV's are much more expensive to dispose of or recycle in both financial as well as environmental cost than the conventional vehicles.

I did like seeing someone actually approach the middle ground concept of the hybrid vehicle, because I believe there is more "Bang for the buck" so to speak in building and using hybrids, especially for those folks with only one vehicle, they can go electric in town and for errands while still having a vehicle CAPABLE of longer range without lengthy charging stops.

yes, I agree a mild hybrid is a great middle ground now.

our hybrid basically "battery assist" non plug in rather than full electric mode, gets 26mpg in stop and go driving, 26mpg on the highway, 0-60 in <6 seconds, 14 second /100mph quarter mile. Same vehicle non hybrid version 16mpg in town, 25 highway, 2 seconds slower 0-60, 1 second slower in the 1/4 mile. And the hybrid was only a $1500 premium over the non hybrid. Will pay for itself in gas saving in about 2 years. Definitely the way to go currently IMHO.

Another overlooked issue is disposal, the batteries in the EV's are much more expensive to dispose of or recycle in both financial as well as environmental cost than the conventional vehicles.

I did like seeing someone actually approach the middle ground concept of the hybrid vehicle, because I believe there is more "Bang for the buck" so to speak in building and using hybrids, especially for those folks with only one vehicle, they can go electric in town and for errands while still having a vehicle CAPABLE of longer range without lengthy charging stops.

A GOOD PRESENTATION IMHO. I certainly agree about a Hybrid being the vehicle of choice until they develop a 400 mile range with a 10 minute recharge and still a few gallons of gas if needed.

bumpy