Reality check on electric cars
- Thread starter Stringfellow Hawk
- Start date
EV'S HOPELESS
One group that has seen double-digit declines in the past 12 months is charging network stocks.
Shares of network operator Blink (BLNK) are down roughly 64% over the past year while charging hardware and software maker ChargePoint (CHPT) is 81% lower during the same period. Network owner and operator EVgo's (EVGO) stock is down 55% in the past year.
The Democrats try to shove these EVs down our throats and nobody wants them - who would have guessed the disaster its turned into.
One group that has seen double-digit declines in the past 12 months is charging network stocks.
Shares of network operator Blink (BLNK) are down roughly 64% over the past year while charging hardware and software maker ChargePoint (CHPT) is 81% lower during the same period. Network owner and operator EVgo's (EVGO) stock is down 55% in the past year.
The Democrats try to shove these EVs down our throats and nobody wants them - who would have guessed the disaster its turned into.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The study focuses on particulate pollution which is mainly caused by tire wear. Since EV's are heavier, much heavier, they have more tire wear and therefore produce far more particulate pollution. In that particular aspect, yes, EV's do pollute more.
Countless governmental studies show that fighting global warming requires EVs.You're taking an outlier and claiming it is correct and all the other studies. thousands of them, are wrong. It is you who is being illogical.
Scott
Verified User
Based on your response, I strongly suspect that. you didn't read the Emission Analytics study. You're ignoring what has been called the Black Swan problem. No matter -how- many white swans you see, it only takes one black swan to prove that not all swans are white. Now, I can certainly understand your reluctance to look at the Emission Analytics study. You have come to the conclusion that EV's couldn't possibly be less environmentally friendly than regular cars and so are reluctant to look at any study that says otherwise. You could argue that it would be a waste of your time.
So all I can do is ask you to think of the black swan problem and leave it at that.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
It's the same thinking the Left uses with Gorebal Warming...
Into the Night
Verified User
Since you can't count, I guess they're countless, eh, Sock?
Nothing to fight.
* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical calculation of this type.
* It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
EVs do not cool the Earth. You can't destroy energy into nothing either.
Trivialization fallacy.
Attempted proof by void. Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame YOUR problems on anybody else, Sock.
Into the Night
Verified User
While a valid argument, a study isn't a proof.
He's a fundamentalist in the Church of Global Warming. He believes that a Magick Holy Gas has the magick capability to create energy out of nothing and warm the Earth.
He also believes that EVs have the Magick Holy capability to destroy energy into nothing and cool the Earth.
The Church of the EV stems from the Church of Global Warming. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green. The Church of Green stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
ALL are fundamentalist style religions.
Into the Night
Verified User
All fundamentalists behave the same way. A single 'black swan' is always ignored.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Studies are not science. Studies do not "show" anything. A study comes about because someone finds it easier to fool large numbers of people by paying a think tank to make his opinion into an official-looking document that resembles an objective analysis. Defense contractors and tech firms call these kinds of documents "white papers." As always when dealing with "studies", one should first follow the money.
Global Warming is a WACKY religion based on HATRED and intolerance. There is no way any human can go out into the world and fight Global Warming because it's nothing more than a religious dogma comprised of doctrines of the supernatural. This is why the thread Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming? remains comletely devoid of any science supporting Global Warming after having grown to almost 150 pages of posts.
Nope. Phoenix used the scientific method to falsify your claim. Hence, your claim was falsified. Hence your claim is FALSE.
In your mind, how many times does a lie need to be told to become the truth?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Correct, but a "study" can nonetheless falsify a falsifiable claim, e.g. the claim that EVs and EV infrastructure somehow produces less emissions than ICEs and ICE infrastructure. The scientific method is powerful; so much so that all you need is just one falsifying example.
You and I know that one can take a slightly more rigorous approach and show through the 2nd law of thermodynamics that EVs can't even achieve parity in efficiency with ICEs, but the scientific method route works just as well.
It's sad that you need to continually repeat this on account of all the eternally scientifically illiterate gullibles.
Scott
Verified User
Agreed. All I'm asking is that he look at the evidence. If he finds flaws in it, he can point them out. If he -doesn't- look at the evidence, though, he can't claim to know that it's false.
Scott
Verified User
The irony here is that I'm actually a big fan of "An Inconvenient Truth", wherein Al Gore was prominently featured. I do believe in Global Warming and I also believe it's being caused by humanity, but that doesn't mean that EVs will solve the problem or even be better than gas powered regular cars.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Both Gore's movie and his book are full of shit science that the scientific illiterate eat up.
Scott
Verified User
I haven't read Gore's book, but I reiterate that I really liked An Inconvenient Truth. Anyone can insult a book or a documentary. The important thing in discussions is to provide evidence for one's assertions.
Into the Night
Verified User
It is the inherent nature of fundamentalism to repetitively attempt to confirm their religion, so I must repeat how they continue to deny and discard theories of science in favor of their religion. I will never convince a fundamentalist to leave his religion, but I can point out to others the futility of their religion. I'm happy to do it.
At least in Christianity, Christ delivers a message of hope and peace, not of chaos and narrow thinking and hate (despite what some 'Christian' churches and 'Christians' claim!).
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
What is "cold" to you? 40 degrees, for instance, is not "cold" to me (even though Californians and Floridians would think it is). Here in Wisconsin, 40 degrees is shorts and t-shirt weather. When it is ACTUALLY cold (say, at or below zero like it was in Shitcago when the EVs there wouldn't charge), EVs have issues with charging (to the point of even not charging at all). Even the leftist fake news has admitted this to be true.
Suuuuuuuuuuure they were.
Why would I want to buy an unnecessarily weighty ICE vehicle when I could just buy an ICE vehicle without the unnecessary weight?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
While "hybrids" are indeed a better option for most people than EV's are, why would anyone want to drive around an unnecessarily weighty ICE vehicle instead of a lighter ICE vehicle?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Doesn't a red flag come up for you at this point???
... "fighting global warming" ... by implementing economically damaging policies... leads to the dreadful conditions (economic and otherwise) that are mentioned in the book of Revelation?
... or is it already too late?
Into the Night
Verified User
This is an attempt to force a negative proof, a logical fallacy.
In another form, you might see the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty".
ANY study that is based on violating theories of science or that creates a non-sequitur fallacy (another logical fallacy) can be summarily discarded. This 'study' does both.
Those are the flaws in it.
There is no evidence. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Global Warming is a religion. This religion stems from the Church of Green. That religion in turn stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
Requiring EVs based on religious principles is itself a religion, and is fascism and tyranny.
As far as the Emission Analytics Study, environment isn't the issue. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere and it absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth. It has absolutely NO capability to warm the Earth.
Now let's look at EV efficiency vs gasoline cars:
EVs must look at the energy costs of charging as well as the costs of discharging to cause the car to travel a given distance.
Charging an EV means generating power at a power plant. Most electricity in the United States is generated using natural gas or coal. Both are cheap and plentiful fuels. Natural gas is a renewable fuel. Burning either fuel generates CO2. The generator itself is not 100% efficient. Eddy currents in the armature and the current flowing through the windings generates considerable waste heat. This is wasted energy. Even the bearings of the generator shaft generates waste heat.
That power must be converted to high voltage for transmission across country. That transformer also generates wasted heat, robbing the available power transmitted through it. This is why transformers are oil cooled (with fans and radiators and everything, also requiring power).
Transmission along high tension lines undergoes heating of the wire (which actually causes it to sag somewhat), as well as leakage through the imperfect air insulation to ground along the entire path. Moist air leaks more power. This energy is lost.
At a substation, another transformer converts power down to distribution voltage (usually 7.2kv). These are the common lines you see along roads serving houses and businesses. Current on these wires also generates wasted heat, and the transformer is also oil cooled to dissipate the heat lost in conversion (again due to eddy currents and winding current).
At the pole, another transformer converts power down to house service entrance voltage (usually 240v biphase). This transformer is also oil cooled, but does not use an active fan. It just radiates it's waste heat to free air.
(Pad transformers, such as used for buried service lines, sometimes DO have active fans in them).
By the time you even get to the charger in the garage, a LOT of energy has been lost due to waste heat and leakage.
Charging a Li-ion battery heats the battery (if it's warm enough for the battery to accept a charge!). This is because charging involves moving ions around, not just electrons. These ions are heavy, and heat the battery as they move through the electrolyte. During discharge, the battery is heated by this action AGAIN as the ions move the other way. In EVs, batteries must be liquid cooled (with radiators and everything) to dissipate this waste heat. Failure to do so may cause battery runaway, with the resulting fire.
If driving in inclement conditions (rain, snow, etc), you must expend battery energy to run wipers, defogging equipment, HVAC, lights, etc.
An EV is a very heavy car. It takes more energy to move it compared to a gasoline car according to F=mA.
OR, you could simply burn the fuel in the car itself and move the car. You get free heat for the cabin as a byproduct if you want it, including defogging. The alternator used to charge the battery also powers the ignition system, lights, and any fans or HVAC.
In the end, when you add it all up, the EV uses almost twice the energy of a gasoline car to move the same distance. Gasoline is an oil product. Oil is a renewable fuel, just like methane (natural gas).
Both vehicles produce CO2 to run them. So big hairy deal. CO2 is a benign naturally occurring gas incapable of warming the Earth.