The HARD TRUTH about EVs
- Thread starter SID297
- Start date
If making an EV causes more (way more) pollution and gets the same effective mileage, sorry. We won't even talk about the data these puff piece pro EV articles use, and they all get them from the same industry/political sources. Any study or data contradicting the pro EV agenda gets buried so fast it is ridiculous.
The argument goes both ways......
Do your research and make your own conclusion.
For what it's worth, I have one of the worst ICE efficient cars made! LOL
Some of the discrepancy has to do with which cars. Based on my limited research the Tesla are really a big step ahead of everyone on the battery/motor side. I still won’t buy one.
Which study/studies takes into account the loss of energy used to create the current ICE's when they're discarded?
If you're throwing away perfectly good ICE's only to create new EV's, don't you have to take that energy into account too?
If you're throwing away perfectly good ICE's only to create new EV's, don't you have to take that energy into account too?
No, because Federal research money doesn't flow to people whose thesis is that EV's are a boondoggle. The powers that be KNOW thousands die mining cobalt, no shits to give. Politicians in office now don't have 2 shits to give about how badly these mandates are gonna blow up and regular people are gonna take it up the ass.
The Science is Settled!
We decided EVs are good!
We then did research to confirm that EVs are good.
We then built metrics to prove EVs are good.
We then began taking economic and policy actions to ensure EVs are good.
The Science is Settled!
Hail Science! Hail Science! Hail Science!
You never answered my question and pointed me to EE. He is alright, I've seen it before. Ill leave it at that.
You think an electric car will still be on the road in 35 years? How many batteries?
Then, when the battery goes, we start the emissions breakeven point again?
I just do not think the EV will outlast a maintained ICE vehicle. Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways.
This is a very detailed report on ICE vs BEV.
In summary, BEV's are slightly more efficient and also likely more toxic.
In general, GHG emissions associated with the raw materials and production stage of BEVs are between 1.3 and 2.0 times higher than for ICEVs. This can be offset by lower in-use stage emissions, depending on the electricity generation source and the lifetime vehicle miles traveled. BEVs offer greater local air quality benefits than ICEVs, due to the absence of tailpipe exhaust emissions. Both BEVs and ICEVs are responsible for upstream air pollutants emissions during the production and in-use stages.
Studies generally suggest that BEVs could be responsible for greater human toxicity and ecosystems effects than their ICEV equivalents, based on current mining and recycling technologies. These potentially different effects from BEVs result from the additional mining and processing of metals to produce batteries and from the mining and combustion of coal to produce
electricity. Increased freshwater ecotoxicity effects from BEVs may likewise result from the additional mining requirements. Other impacts are more complicated to compare.
In summary, BEV's are slightly more efficient and also likely more toxic.
In general, GHG emissions associated with the raw materials and production stage of BEVs are between 1.3 and 2.0 times higher than for ICEVs. This can be offset by lower in-use stage emissions, depending on the electricity generation source and the lifetime vehicle miles traveled. BEVs offer greater local air quality benefits than ICEVs, due to the absence of tailpipe exhaust emissions. Both BEVs and ICEVs are responsible for upstream air pollutants emissions during the production and in-use stages.
Studies generally suggest that BEVs could be responsible for greater human toxicity and ecosystems effects than their ICEV equivalents, based on current mining and recycling technologies. These potentially different effects from BEVs result from the additional mining and processing of metals to produce batteries and from the mining and combustion of coal to produce
electricity. Increased freshwater ecotoxicity effects from BEVs may likewise result from the additional mining requirements. Other impacts are more complicated to compare.
If they really cared about environmental stuff, EVs would all have an 8 sec 0-60 and top out at 80mph.
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
Wonder if they are realizing the well to do (the only ones that can afford ev’s) won’t buy that shit.
It's not about "saving the planet."
No. It isn’t. It’s not about replacing your ICE vehicle with EV either.
Which is why anyone who buys into this bullshit for any reason is…well..at a minimum…a simpleton.
It honestly couldn’t be more obvious what is happening.
Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Happy New Year
I also don't see these studies take into account the NEWLY required upgrade of the entire electrical grid, the infrastructure to replace gas pumps with charging stations, the 100's of millions of home charging stations, millions and millions of supposed green energy projects (home owners and commercial) that also require fossil fuel backup, especially in colder areas, trillions required to upgrade dealerships, increased road constructions since EV's are way heavier than the same ICE.
IF they are trying to stop supposedly manmade global warming in the near term, most of that above is going to make it worse, before making it better (if it ever does).
Same can be said for ICE. None of us would know what a muscle car is, as they would have never existed. Necessary, efficient transportation would be the only use for vehicles. Trucks as well. They'd be designed/used purely for 'work' purposes. Not jerking off in the sand/mud or driving around empty back and forth to work everyday with the ventilated seats on. The argument is endless.
Face it. Money. It's what you need to get what you want. It takes priority over everything else.
Last edited:
Er ma gawd! Carbon and 2 oxygens emitted into the environment! Like how is the earth going to handle the two building block elements that all life on earth requires! The humanity! We must stop all carbon and oxygen elements immediately!!!
Anything faster than 0-60 in 5 seconds, is practically reckless driving in any urban setting. I'd guess many a street light are not even set up for 60' times of the fastest EV's (combined with the guy coming the other way, that just squeaked the last second of a yellow).
I've asked before why they can't use smaller motors, smaller battery packs (and lighter weights) to extend range. EVer's tell me it doesn't matter, but I'm not buying it if an EV was designed from the ground up for max range, and 0-60 in the 7 second range.
It "could be said", but no true conservatives are jamming products down my throat, claiming how great they will be for the world (especially when many times, it is untrue).
There's a trade-off between motor efficiency and size. The torque comes along for the ride. Minimizing electron consumption at low loads (highest use case / most miles driven at a specific torque/amp load) drives the selection of appropriate sized large motors. The extra torque is just available to use as far as the cooling systems allow.
Smaller motors result in less efficiency at a given torque/amp and therefore higher amp draw and less vehicle range.
The vehicle weight is driven by the batteries, which have trade offs as well.
Like everything everywhere, there are trade offs to be made. There are very few win- wins in life; most everything is a balance of competing oppositions.
Users who are viewing this thread
