This is why an electric car is better that people don't seem to talk about much.

[zpaul]

Right. Because the auto industry isn't investing in Electric cars, and hasn't seen that EV's are the future. Yeah, clearly they don't want anyone to know that EV's are good.

Oh wait, Ford just made a dedicated EV Mustang platform and is going to sell an all-EV F-150.

Nope, they don't want anyone to know.

Yeah right. Ford was not interested in fuel efficient vehicle at all. I had EcoBoost and it had same milage as 5.0 liter engine.
They even stopped producing sedans. The only money maker was F150.
Now with $12,500 in subsidies for their $50-80k truck they are suddenly interested in clean future.

 

[Earl]

Oh wait, Ford just made a dedicated EV Mustang platform and is going to sell an all-EV F-150.

Nope, they don't want anyone to know.

This is a recent development. Hopefully, it is real.
Note: Ford's previous EV was the Focus EV and their minimal EV range PHEV energi series.

Then there are the rest of the ICE makers. i3 anyone? Leaf?

 

[zpaul]

This is a recent development. Hopefully, it is real.
Note: Ford's previous EV was the Focus EV and their minimal EV range PHEV energi series.

Then there are the rest of the ICE makers. i3 anyone? Leaf?

Yeah another cool Ford example is their Plug-In Hybrid Fusion.
Gets 20 miles on a charge and still qualifies as EV for $3k in MD and $4,600 in Federal credit.
Why are we subsidizing that?!?!?!

 

[mk677]

More to life than just dollars. The poorer people would need to be subsidized though.

as long as they're subsidized with other people's dollars

 

[SO16]

as long as they're subsidized with other people's dollars

Whatever gets us to cleaner environment that we all share regardless of how rich one is.

 

[mk677]

I have been screaming about this for years. Even if you accept the ridiculous argument that BEVs are just as polluting, the fact that you and everyone you know are no longer immersed in the center of the pollution on a daily basis alone is enough of a reason to move to an all BEV world.

I think this has been steadfastly ignored as a topic of conversation by the FUDsters because the only effective argument against this would be that BEVs are WORSE than ICE cars for pollution, so much worse that even moving the source of pollution 100 miles away still does not help. A ridiculous argument that simply no one would buy.

Better not to mention it....

all this nonsense is really about shifting the brunt of the pollution, the mining for the metals is quite harsh on the environment but the people here aren't affected so just shift the problems.
the point is BEVs, ICEs all cause pollution. the argument is a specious one

 

[roblab]

all this nonsense is really about shifting the brunt of the pollution, the mining for the metals is quite harsh on the environment but the people here aren't affected so just shift the problems.
the point is BEVs, ICEs all cause pollution. the argument is a specious one

No, the point is that BEVs cause LESS pollution. Of course there is pollution when making battery packs, just like there is pollution when building an engine. But then the ICE goes on to burn fossil fuels for 100K miles, while my car runs on power generated by the sun with no pollution. Don't try to give me the story about how mining metals are worse than mining fossil fuels. The need for a few pounds of lithium and other special metals only happens once for my car. Burning gas happens for years and years for every ICE car.

I've often wondered how long people would accept that pollution if the exhaust pipe ended inside the car. "Oh, there's hardly any pollution! No, I hardly mind the carbon all over my clothes at ALL! (Cough, cough) Oh, this? Just a little cough I picked up on vacation. All that salt air, you know."

I call BS.

 

[cucubits]

Allow me to jump in on @cucubits behalf- I think he is referring to pickup trucks. The typical Ford, Dodge and Chevy. No question here in Texas those are a huge portion of vehicles on the road. Around here they are lifted all silly like a bigger truck means a bigger... wallet... They constantly 'roll coal' like that is some kind of 'wallet' measuring contest as well. And cucubits if I misinterpreted wrong please correct me!

Yes, thank you. I should have been more clear but I thought it's obvious we're not talking about the big supply delivery trucks.

I was thinking only about pickup trucks which texans are very much a fan of and for the life of me I can't understand why. Most likely they must have "something" to make them feel big. Of course the few of them who are actually using pickup trucks to haul things or use them for work, are not in this category.

To be honest, I get a bit more happy every time I see the fuel prices increasing. We're almost at $3/gallon but we're going in the right direction

 

[MorrisonHiker]

No, the point is that BEVs cause LESS pollution. Of course there is pollution when making battery packs, just like there is pollution when building an engine. But then the ICE goes on to burn fossil fuels for 100K miles, while my car runs on power generated by the sun with no pollution. Don't try to give me the story about how mining metals are worse than mining fossil fuels. The need for a few pounds of lithium and other special metals only happens once for my car. Burning gas happens for years and years for every ICE car.

I've often wondered how long people would accept that pollution if the exhaust pipe ended inside the car. "Oh, there's hardly any pollution! No, I hardly mind the carbon all over my clothes at ALL! (Cough, cough) Oh, this? Just a little cough I picked up on vacation. All that salt air, you know."

I call BS.

Another nice thing about the minerals in batteries is that they aren't burned up and sent into the atmosphere. They stay right there in the batteries and can be reprocessed and reused again and again in new batteries, reducing the need to mine new minerals.

 

[zpaul]

The funny part that environment was never a priority in US.
In Europe VW, Audi, BMW, Merc were producing cars with 1.2 ,1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 liter engines.
But the cars that were sold in US would start only with 2.0 liters, but that is recent, before it started at 2.3 or 2.5 liters.
Whatever the reason is:
- whether US government was lobbied (better word bribed) by oil companies. And these are the same people who sit in DC for the past 30-50 years!
- Americans do not want tiny engines, they want V8 with loud pipes and 8mpg fuel economy. Because that is American muscle car story.

VW scandal on cheating ruined diesel engines too because diesel in US is associated with American diesel trucks emitting huge black smoke.
VW TDI could get me 1000 miles on a tank of diesel at almost 60mpg. Don't tell me that F150 with 15mpg is a better choice than VW.
50% of cars that were sold in Europe were diesel.

 

[traxila]

all this nonsense is really about shifting the brunt of the pollution, the mining for the metals is quite harsh on the environment but the people here aren't affected so just shift the problems.
the point is BEVs, ICEs all cause pollution. the argument is a specious one

Overall I call BS on this.

But yeah, there is pollution associated with all kinds of mining. Link is a possible solution that could reduce overall environmental impact 90 plus percent.

Home Page - The Metals Company

metals.co

 

[mk677]

Overall I call BS on this.
[/URL]

then you are just plain old clueless on the subject

 

[mk677]

No, the point is that BEVs cause LESS pollution. Of course there is pollution when making battery packs, just like there is pollution when building an engine. But then the ICE goes on to burn fossil fuels for 100K miles, while my car runs on power generated by the sun with no pollution. Don't try to give me the story about how mining metals are worse than mining fossil fuels. The need for a few pounds of lithium and other special metals only happens once for my car. Burning gas happens for years and years for every ICE car.

I've often wondered how long people would accept that pollution if the exhaust pipe ended inside the car. "Oh, there's hardly any pollution! No, I hardly mind the carbon all over my clothes at ALL! (Cough, cough) Oh, this? Just a little cough I picked up on vacation. All that salt air, you know."

I call BS.

while your car may be powered by the sun the cast majority of electricity in the US uses either coal or nat. gas for generation. call BS all that you want but that's the facts

Electricity in the U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The major fuel/energy sources and their contribution to annual U.S. electricity generation.

www.eia.gov

 

[SO16]

while your car may be powered by the sun the cast majority of electricity in the US uses either coal or nat. gas for generation. call BS all that you want but that's the facts

Electricity in the U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The major fuel/energy sources and their contribution to annual U.S. electricity generation.

www.eia.gov

Where does that prove @roblab wrong?

 

[Doc Brown]

So . . . the effectiveness of a BEV reducing pollution (or the extent to which it does) is reflected in where the electricity to power it comes from. Some places are certainly better than others - my electric supplier has solar, hydro, and a natural gas facility. Some electric suppliers have more fossil fuel burning than others - BEVs, as pollution-reducing transportation, as less effective in those places. Whether they are ever "worse" than ICE vehicles is questionable - but who knows.

In China, for example, in 2018, I recall around 65-70% of generated electricity came from coal. China is trying to move more towards renewables - but I think its beyond dispute that electric cars in China are "pollution free." Same is true with some places in the US.

I just think you can't be blind to what emissions are associated with the generation of electricity when talking about BEVs and their impacts, in real time.

 

[traxila]

then you are just plain old clueless on the subject

Can't clean up the transportation grid unless you make it energy agnostic first. If all cars were BEVs, you could then efficiently and relentlessly transform to renewables. Or you could power them with coal, or oil or gas or nuclear. Precisely what you cannot do with ICEs. They must burn fossil, specifically gasoline. It is completely disingenuous to attack BEVs on the basis of the energy mix present now. BEVs will be as clean as you allow them to be.

Rather than saying that you are clueless about the subject, I will say with high certainty that you know all this. So what does that say about you exactly then?

 

[mk677]

Can't clean up the transportation grid unless you make it energy agnostic first. If all cars were BEVs, you could then efficiently and relentlessly transform to renewables. Or you could power them with coal, or oil or gas or nuclear. Precisely what you cannot do with ICEs. They must burn fossil, specifically gasoline. It is completely disingenuous to attack BEVs on the basis of the energy mix present now. BEVs will be as clean as you allow them to be.

Rather than saying that you are clueless about the subject, I will say with high certainty that you know all this. So what does that say about you exactly then?

I think you've purposely ignored how power is generated in the US. but keep on

 

[traxila]

I think you've purposely ignored how power is generated in the US. but keep on

Your point being that our electricity generation has a long way to go to be Green. Agreed.

https://www.scottmadden.com/content/uploads/2016/12/ScottMadden-Presentation-to-GenForum.pdf

My original point here was that even if BEVs were equally dirty as ICE and irreversibly so (not), then I would still prefer the sources of pollution to be distant rather than in my face causing diseases from asthma and COPD to dementia. I think you have purposely ignored this.

 

[mk677]

Your point being that our electricity generation has a long way to go to be Green. Agreed.

https://www.scottmadden.com/content/uploads/2016/12/ScottMadden-Presentation-to-GenForum.pdf

My original point here was that even if BEVs were equally dirty as ICE and irreversibly so (not), then I would still prefer the sources of pollution to be distant rather than in my face causing diseases from asthma and COPD to dementia. I think you have purposely ignored this.

the reply was to someone who boasted that THEIR car is clean because it runs on power generated at his home. I am pointing out that he is an outlier and that the reality is that the pollution is occurring somewhere when using an EV, thinking an EV is pollution free because a handful of people are generating power is ignoring the vast majorities who buy their power from sources that use fossil fuels to create the power. EVs are not pollution free.

 

[David_Cary]

The electricity mix in the US is 59% FF and 41% not. So if you accept that efficiency is that same at a large plant vs a car sometimes running cold and for short distances, then there is a 41% reduction in FF use which isn't too shabby.
Then there is probably 20% improvement in efficiency because of economies of scale in excess of transmission losses.
Then there is CA where probably close to 50% of EVs are driven which has a much higher percentage of renewable use.
Put all this together and there is surely a 60% reduction in FF use. This is respectable.
Then put the renewable trajectory on a chart projected forward the lifetime of an EV. And consider the carbon content of NG produced locally and generally being a 30% lower carbon energy use than oil.
In many markets, FF will be gone while the car is still around.

I had some of the same concerns so I installed solar when I got my first EV in 2013. Now the percentage of electricity generated by coal has gone down 50% since 2013 and I am less concerned. Think about that - at that trajectory, we use no coal in the US in 2029. And 4 of those 8 years had a coal hero in the white house.