https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/white-house-threatens-to-veto-anti-ev-bill-just-passed-by-us-house/
The bill would prevent the EPA from enforcing tougher new pollution standards.
White House threatens to veto anti-EV bill just passed by US House::The bill would prevent the EPA from enforcing tougher new pollution standards.
Good. This is just theater for the knuckle-dragging Republican base anyway. The dems who went along with it can eat a bag of dicks.
Anyone notice how many news stories nowadays start with "Republicans block or halt or shut down or remove something.... They aren't doing anything... Just keeping anyone else from doing anything
People are probably getting sick of me saying this by now, but of course Republicans aren't doing anything, this is their philosophy. Their core beliefs are in conserving traditional hierarchies and norms. God over man, men over women and children, white over black, rich over poor, cis-het over LGBT people and other hierarchies.
Their actions are best understood through the lens of conservative philosophy and the maintenance or restoration of socio-economic hierarchies.
To achieve their goals, they really only need to do a few things legialativly,
You see 1 all the time, they dont even need to be in power to do it. They just need to get in the way. If they get power, you see 2, and since they're trying to rollback generational change, not even decades old precedent is safe (see Roe vs. Wade).
The best part is that they got us fighting each other so much. They’ve managed to divide us across whatever line you can think of.
All of this is a distraction. While racism and sexism absolutely exist, they fortunately aren’t the cornerstones of our hierarchies anymore. Thats great, but now we have a caste system, and nobody wants to acknowledge it.
Seems clear to me that my explanation covers pretty well the reasons white power groups and orthodox/conservative Christians are right wing. They aren't the same groups, necessarily, but they both want to conserve their respective hierarchies.
Yes and Russia and China are democracies because they said so.
The Bible is pretty clear on racism and feeding the poor etc.
Learn your fallacies.
It's not that people disagree with you about the hypocrisy here, but rather that you're being a real cockface about every interaction you're having.
They are just racists with a Bible in their hand.
I grew up in churches around religious people, you just described 99% of "Christians" in the American South.
Moses recieved the 10 commandments from Mt Sinai, notably among them being "thou shalt not kill" immediately after massacring an entire army and then immediately went to war and wiped out an entire nation in a genocide.
And thats in the Bible.
The only good Christian, by Christians' own admission, was Christ himself.
I'm not gonna defend the entire Bible here but that story was about Amalek, a specific people not humanity in general. Also they had some voodoo stuff in there about them transforming into animals. It was kinda out there.
The water of the sea drowning the Pharaos army chasing the israelites doesn't seem like a moral dilemma to me.
The not killing part refers to not just killing anyone or stealing their stuff etc. Actual self defense is fine.
You can focus on the few war stories but I know a bunch of good Christians who have adopted kids, feed the poor and do a lot of charity stuff etc. The actual good stuff.
Considering their whole M.O. is regression or conservation of the status quo, that's not surprising
Democrats suck ass and do the same thing. Two parties my ass. It's a game and we're the pawns.
And there's still plenty more to try. They've barely even scratched the surface of the whole genocide-your-own-population thing
Yeah, but it's on a picture and I agree with it, because it's shitting on Americans, so I'm going to mindlessly parrot it!
Fucking dipshit asshole bastard republiQans. Evil, stupid, sociopathic, and cheating every way possible. As usual.
Are you telling me, that my US rep Tim Fucking Walberg, that useless fuck, actually accomplished something? I'm actually kind of impressed. The bill is straight up dogshit, but he actually submitted something and dogged it through committee and got the full chamber to vote on something.
I call bullshit. Someone else did this, and pawned it off onto Tim. Either because they didn't want to be responsible for it, or they felt sorry for him. Hell, I feel sorry for him.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The White House's plan to boost electric vehicle adoption came under heavy fire in Congress on Wednesday.
Five Democratic Representatives joined the Republican majority to pass a bill that would prohibit the US Environmental Protection Agency from enacting stricter new corporate average fuel efficiency regulations that would require automakers to sell many more EVs by the year 2032.
But burning fewer hydrocarbons has become anathema to the modern Republican Party, and former President Donald Trump's administration focused some of its attention on undermining the EPA's ability to regulate tailpipe emissions or cut gasoline dependence.
A pair of Texas Democrats (Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzales), as well as Jared Golden (D-Maine), Donald Davis (D-N.C.), and Mary Peltola (D-Alaska) all voted with the Republican Party.
It says the EPA cannot "finalize, implement, or enforce" new vehicle pollution regulations that are meant to go into effect in 2027.
The White House strongly condemned the legislation, which it says would "catastrophically impair" the EPA's ability to regulate vehicle pollution, and President Joe Biden has threatened to veto the bill should it pass the Senate and be sent to his desk.
The original article contains 356 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 48%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The bill has been passed by the House but not the Senate. It is not yet ready to be signed or vetoed.
Current battery tech for EV's is only good for short range commuters who have a means to charge from their homes. That leaves out half the population.
Hybrid EVs are pretty good for everything. Their batts are small enough to be easily replaced when they go bad (all EV's of every type will have their batteries need replaced in 10 to 20 years time) and you don't need to plug them in so no range issues or priving unregulated EV charging station to worry about finding.
That's really the only type of EV the US should be concentrating on until there's better battery options available. A 1500 Lb Battery that costs over $10,000 to have replaced so you can go 300 miles when the car is new (and temps are warm) and have it slowly dwindle down lower and lower with every charge is a waste that will prematurely add vehicles to landfills.
Lol. No. I just know more and have more experience about both vehicles and batteries than almost anyone else that would be on here.
So why don't you go ahead and explain in your own words why an all electric vehicle built today is going to save the environment. Explain how a vehicle that will only last 15 years before needing to be scrapped or has to have $10,000 thrown at it is better. Explain how all the extra rubber and tire pollution from wearing out 15 to 20 percent faster due to all the extra weight, is going to save the environment. Explain how one country putting up 5% less cO2 is going to slow global warming.
EV will be great after batteries move beyond the li-pos and more of the US is on wind and solar. Right now though, straight EVs are shit.
Explain how a vehicle that will only last 15 years before needing to be scrapped or has to have $10,000 thrown at it is better
Count all the maintenance you would be spending on an ICE over that same time period. Oil changes, spark plugs, coolant. Brakes also have less wear on EVs due to regen braking. It's too the point where they may last the life of the vehicle.
Ever look at the suggested maintenance schedule for an EV? Dealerships do, and it's part of why they're aggressively lobbying the government to keep ICEs on the road longer.
Explain how all the extra rubber and tire pollution from wearing out 15 to 20 percent faster due to all the extra weight, is going to save the environment.
Largely overblown, and also solvable in time. Based on how long humans can go without a food and piss break, plus some padding for 80% charge time and cold weather, there isn't much point to an EV with more than about 400 miles of range--and this is a very high end estimate. Past that, any further improvements in battery tech can be used to reduce weight. There are EVs on the market that are almost there already.
Explain how one country putting up 5% less cO2 is going to slow global warming.
I don't know where you're getting that. Transportation is 28% of US CO2 emissions.
EV will be great after batteries move beyond the li-pos and more of the US is on wind and solar.
So in your mind, we can't do more than one thing at a time? We can't have EVs until we have renewable power, and presumably an extensive charging network?
So in your mind, we can’t do more than one thing at a time? We can’t have EVs until we have renewable power, and presumably an extensive charging network?
Its a classic argument a lot of Americans love to make about anything they hate "If it cant be absolutely, positively, flawlessly perfect immediately upon launch, then we should never use it even if its infinitely superior to what we already have"
Count all the maintenance you would be spending on an ICE over that same time period. Oil changes, spark plugs, coolant. Brakes also have less wear on EVs due to regen braking. It's too the point where they may last the life of the vehicle.
I love this.
Plugs are once every 100,000 miles well call it three times in 15 years.
EVs have coolant and it also needs replaced (lol)
Brakes do need changed less. Maybe 2 times over 15 years as opposed to 4 times. Like spark plugs, brakes are cheap. You know what isn't cheap? The $2,500 inverter that makes the regen work on your ev. Better hope that doesn't go out. Oops, that $2,500 isn't including labor. Maybe you can do it yourself.
You got me on oil. Over 15 years there'd be 30 or 40 oil changes. Somewhere around $1,200 total.
Now be sure to add the things in that go out more often on evs. Shocks, struts, tires, tie rods, ball joints...oh, and that insurance on EVs is more expensive. The insurance alone more than offsets the $1,200 for oil changes. Then with tires costing about $700 a set to have mounted I'd sure hate having to do that 15% more often. And that rubber pollution is bad stuff. I just read an article last year about how badly it was harming fish. Ah well. Fuck em, right?
The heat levels of that coolant is far less than in an ICE. It rarely needs replacing. Occasional topping up. A lot of EV maintenance schedules never bother with it.
and that insurance on EVs is more expensive.
https://www.progressive.com/answers/car-insurance-electric-vehicles/
"However, it's important to note that, while electric vehicles are currently far from the cheapest cars to insure — as they become more commonplace, and the availability of parts and qualified repair shops grows — the cost to fix them should go down, as should electric car insurance rates"
Again, nothing that can't be solved in time.
Then with tires costing about $700 a set to have mounted I'd sure hate having to do that 15% more often. And that rubber pollution is bad stuff. I just read an article last year about how badly it was harming fish. Ah well. Fuck em, right?
Compared to the pollution output of an ICE? Really? You found one thing that polluted more and ran with it without considering anything else or how it would be solved.
In the future, evs will have better batteries, which has been my entire point. This is now, and now, evs are more expensive to insure.
You don't replace coolant because it stops cooling or looses it's ability to not freeze. It lubricates less effectively and can slowly start to pick up electrical currents over long periods of time. So you still need to change it. If you want to have that one over an ice vehicle though, then I guess "oh noooo. I have to spend $25 every 7 years and replace my radiator fluid"
Tires are less about pollution to me and more about the cost, but either way, you only brought it up because you wanted to complain about me pointing it out, and it being true, and how dare I bring up something true? Whatever, man. You think you're part of this big thing to help the environment, but really you're just naive and jumping on a bandwagon that's forcing something before it's actually going to be beneficial. Most every ev built today is going to be a net loss on the environment. We need clean energy first, then battery tech for EV's (this may be just a few years away if a couple different auto manufacturers aren't blowing smoke about their solid state batteries) and we need a charging infrastructure.
No, cole, that is horseshit and you know it. Coolant contamination is a result of extremes in temperature, same with oil breakdown. Because EVs are not heat engines, whose efficiency directly correlates to the Carnot cycle's rules, they are inherently more efficient. Stop spreading misinformation and pretending to be an engineer.
People don't have to buy an EV, it is their option. It has much lower TCO, and your point about "better hope the inverter doesn't go out..", makes me wonder if you know what exactly goes wrong with them by way of actually knowing how they work.
At any stage in history, the introduction of a new technology tends to be initially inefficient. Time resolves this kind of thing, see the much more energy efficient processor in the phone you spout drivel from vs an older model. Same lithium polymer batteries, not necessarily the same capacity, but much more advanced switching and software techniques to make the energy go much farther.
Get educated before you go sucking off the oil industry under the hilariously thin guise of "EVs aren't ready yet!".
On the oil you are forgetting the externality it too poses. The oil needs to be disposed of. In addition to the externalities of the logistics of gas (gas stations, fuel deliveries, leaking Underground storage). There is a lot of these in the fuel process, from drilling oil all the way through the process.
Good point, just read some more on that. Seems like the bulk is refined to be used in boiler furnaces and burned. A small part is reused, and then the final leftovers are so horrible they are disposed of in controversial ways.
But I must admit I thought it was all just burned outright. I have not been able to find numbers on what percentage is recycled and burned and what part is just burned, calling it recycling which is technically correct (the best kind of correct) but not what most people think of when they hear recycling.
I just know more and have more experience about both vehicles and batteries than almost anyone else that would be on here.
Where the Orange have i heard talk like that before?
What's the maintenance costs for 15 years in an ICE vehicle vs electric? Now add in the savings from not having to pay $5.00+ a gallon(it will go up)? I'd also argue that more than half of drivers do not need to drive over 300 miles a day.
My maintenance costs per year would be about $200 not counting tires. But I do all my own work and vet my vehicles well before purchasing them. Most people's would be higher, though, since most don't do their own work.
But in comparison to all electrics, the savings aren't as much as you're thinking. There's still a huge load of things that can/will break down on an electric. Shocks, struts, wheel bearings moreso than an ice vehicle.
To give an example, I'll use the 3rd most sold all electric of last year; the mustang mach-e. I'm skipping the first two because they're teslas and absolutely ridiculous in high prices to get parts for.
I'll start things off with the worst one.
So the battery itself (I'm looking these up as I go) is a holy shit $23,000 just for the part itself and only has a 100,000 mile warranty that it will have at least 70% capacity from when you buy the vehicle new. Wow, would that absolutely suck. You can buy new ice engines and have them installed for you for under $10,000. Way under in many cases.
Looks like the electric motor itself is around $4,000 if you got the all wheel drive version you have two of these to worry about. Then theres the inverters for the motors. Those are $1,700 a piece. I'm not traking down prices for the rest of this stuff. You get the idea.
You still have a single gear transmission to worry about that needs fluid changes.
Also antifreeze and a pump.
Brakes and brake fluid
Calipers
Several different control modules
Sensors
Etc etc.
Basically your maintenance free stuff that you don't have to do to an electric you do have to mess with on an ice consists of plugs, ignition coils, serpentine belt, oil, injectors, fuel pump, and a timing belt if you got a vehicle with a belt and not a chain, throttle body, air filter and a few sensors. Aside from the oil and air filter, most of that stuff are things that need addressed every 80,000 miles or if they break.
That's close to about it on what you no longer need to mess with. An electrics transmission should almost never break down so long as it's fluid gets changed, at least. They're quite simple bits.
So most "maintenance" and upkeep still exists for electrics. You just don't have to spend 30 minutes changing oil every 4 to 8 thousand miles. There's also a lot of extra that can break and cost a lot to fix on an electric. Then other things that break faster.
While most of your big ticket items like the electric motors and the inverters are left to a chance at going out, just like a chance of an ice blowing a rod out. It's an absolute fact that your evs battery will die and that every single month that goes along you'll get less and less capacity.
You want to save the environment? Instead of being forced to spend thousands more on an electric vehicle, buying a small ice vehicle and taking the $10k you saved and installing solar panels to your houses roof will do more.
The prices to those parts don’t seem that absurd especially given how the EV maintenance and parts market is still fairly new.?
Nope, all moronic attempts at making a fairly robust assembly look shaky and expensive. Shame on you colonSloth.
We engineers always use a factor of safety in our design work, so your talk about inverters (which you obviously don't understand), motors (also don't understand it's reliability)... You're basically listing a parts list for the mach-e from most to least expensive parts.
If/when a battery assembly wears out to needing replacement, most of everything else should still be working fine. You may need to replace the fluid pump, brakes, maybe even a wheel bearing. Throwing words in like "control modules" as though they fail frequently is as big a joke as you are.
Answer this, knucklehead: when you visit a factory, with many many pumps and moving machinery, operating 24/7 365, are they using a combustion engine as the prime mover for all this equipment, where reliability is Paramount?
What’s the maintenance costs for 15 years in an ICE vehicle vs electric?
Probably significantly less than the cost to maintain roads because now every vehicle would be significantly heavier. Oh and bridges!
The US could compensate by people driving less of the unnecessarily large vehicles.
Look large pickups and SUVs have a function, but driving a 2 ton vehicle to and from the office by yourself is not a green choice.
Make road taxes based on weight.
In terms of EVs I would love a solution for the range. I drive relatively small commute and if there was a way to leave 2/3 of the batteries in my garage and only install them when I want to visit grandma it would be great and save a lot of weight.
The US could compensate by people driving less of the unnecessarily large vehicles.
Yeah, that will never happen.
Make road taxes based on weight.
I'm 100% on board with this. But we'll never see it happen. And regardless, in this context that means that ICE vehicles on average would be taxed less. Proves the point that there is an additional cost that people don't actually ever acknowledge with BEVs.
to leave 2/3 of the batteries in my garage and only install them when I want to visit grandma it would be great and save a lot of weight.
Then you'd be paying much higher taxes for something you're not actually leveraging. Normal people will basically never do this.
Well flat vehicle taxing based on weight, ICE engines are taxed additionally by tax on fuel. Not all taxation needs to/should happen in a single space.
If the US raises gas prices the desire to drive gas guzzling pickups and SUVs will automatically lower (I hope).
And about paying taxes for something im not leveraging.. depending on the tax burden and possible energy saving based on reduced weight I don't know. It might just be fully impractical as a system that allows for easy swap in and out of batteries might add so much weight and complexity it makes the whole exercise pointless anyway.
I'm mostly just hoping on improvements in battery tech in general. That aging EVs can be equipped with newer batteries with higher power density.
… bridges? The things over engineered to be able to support more weight for longer periods of time than they are required to?
I think they’ll be just fine. 🤦🏻♂️
I think they’ll be just fine. 🤦🏻♂️
https://infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bridges-2021.pdf
Currently, 42% of all bridges are at least 50 years old, and 46,154, or 7.5% of the nation’s bridges, are considered structurally deficient, meaning they are in “poor” condition.
We're not doing good in maintaining them already... Now you want to increase weight load on all of them 30-100%...
Estimates show that we need to increase spending on bridge rehabilitation from $14.4 billion annually to $22.7 billion annually, or by 58%, if we are to improve the condition. At the current rate of investment, it will take until 2071 to make all of the repairs that are currently necessary, and the additional deterioration over the next 50 years will become overwhelming.
Our bridges are not in good shape in the USA.
But sure, let's live in your delusion! That will only lead to success! Totally won't lead to people dying avoidable deaths.
The majority of EVs weigh less than quite a few SUV and pickup ICE vechiles driving around today. If this is such a concern, why isn’t the whistle also being blown about these vehicles?
I'd be interested in knowing how you've got more experience and knowledge about EVs, if you could share. There's a lot of misinformation out there but I'm open to hearing about your credentials. We always hear about "gasoline powered cars putting X tons of pollution into the air" but no one I've heard mentions replacing the batteries on an EV. I don't think the general public really even thinks about it. I'd love to know more.
I've rebuilt ev batteries before, I do all my own automotive work and repairs, I've kept close eyes on the emerging battery tech for vehicles and know the battery chemistry used in current and older EV's and own stocks in two different battery companies (any idiot can own stock, but I just mention it to say I have money on the line in paying attention to batteries. I keep a fairly tight portfolio). I've been working on electronics for 30 years and vehicles for over 20 years.
I'm not outstanding or anything, but that still puts me in a pretty narrow demographic on Lemmy, and evs are a subject of interest to me, while my job grants me a lot of free time to do what I want, which is often reading about things.
So the deal with the batteries: there's been a handful of different types of ev batteries used over the past 15 years. Some lithium iron phosphate, some nickel metal hydride, some lithium, or nickel Cobalt aluminum.
Each has some positives and negatives but the overreaching delima with any of these is that they all need a lot of small individual cells to make up the entire battery pack (teslas can have 2,800 batteries all tied together to make their battery pack, for instance) and they all suffer from being charged/discharged. At current, lithium based batteries (most all of the newer EV's) can last about 1500 full charge/discharge cycles before failure. But every single charge/discharge cycle does a small amount of damage in the formation of what is called dendrites. Dendrites rob a battery of capacity and eventually will short out the battery cell, making it go completely bad.
The damage to the batteries is worse at times of full charge and full discharge. And is lessened if kept in between. EVs use this to their advantage and will cut your vehicles power off showing 0%, even though there's capacity left in the batteries to go several more miles, and "100% fully charged" when plugged in, will actually be only around 90% of the batteries max capacity. If you owned an EV and kept it between about 30% and 80% the entire time, and avoided fast charging, which also makes batteries go bad faster, your battery should last longer than most anyone else's.
But anyhow, every battery used in an electric only vehicle today is 100% fact going to lose a bit of max range with every single charge, because every single charge causes a slight amount of build-up/damage to the batteries inside. Aside from that, no manufacturing process for those batteries is perfect, so not all of those hundreds or thousands of battery cells that make up the ev battery are perfectly the same, so they won't all start to go bad a once. Once enough of those cells go completely bad (today's evs track the cells and can compensate for the bad ones for a while) your battery, all 1,200 to 2,000 pounds of it will need to be replaced, and replacing them with a used/refurbished battery pack is a temporary bandaid after paying a large labor cost, or a new battery pack which will cost you more than what you would expect to pay for an entire 10 year old used car.
Manufacturers (and real world info as all electric evs are starting to get pretty old) expect the batteries to last 10 to 20 years. It's looking like that's a pretty good estimate. 20 years being a stretch, but doable for someone who slow charges at home , only charges to 80%, and doesn't take trips that take them down too low on charge.
To give you an idea of how well auto manufacturers are aware of this, just look at a Ford mustang mach e. The most popular ev after tesla. They have a 8 year or 100,000 mile warranty on the battery. The mach e has a claimed range of 290 miles. Their warranty doesn't take effect unless the battery capacity is less than 70% of what it was when new. Imagine having a car you paid $50,000 for, expected to get 290 miles with, and then 4 years later with 95,000 miles on it you can only go 210 miles and ford tells you to go kick rocks. Currently, that battery pack is about $23,000 dollars(most batteries arent this stupid high). Plus install. I just got rid of a mini van that was supposed to get 22 mpg. It was 16 years old, had 245,000 miles on it, and it still got 22 mpg. It was also still worth something. How much will a 16 year old EV that needs a $12,000 battery to work again be worth? Pretty much nothing after people learn how expensive and how guaranteed it is that they'll need to have a new battery. I wouldn't spend $12,000 on most 15 year old vehicles that are in great condition. The thought of paying to get a 15 year old vehicles that would still need a battery put in it is asinine.
What makes you think you know more than everybody here? You know how the Internet works right? We likely have literal EV engineers reading this thread.
Funny enough, I haven't seen one chime in, yet. But since less than 1 in 1000 people happen to be ev engineers, that would still put me well within the top 1%, even with them above me. As for me, I just started up working on a bad ev battery just today. Find me your engineer. They won't disagree with me. No one who designs rechargeable batteries of any kind would. They aren't stupid.
Coincidentally, in addition to having a BS in EE and an MS in CompE, I was a senior engineer working on battery control systems for three seasons with a Formula E team in my previous job.
At no point did I ever even hint to being an engineer, my man
and
If you aren't an engineer working with ev batteries or othe rechargeablebatteries, your opinion has no weight.
You’re right, I’m not stupid which is precisely why I haven’t “chimed in” on your unqualified opinions.
Ugh. The trite, baseless elitism. I'm an engineer and I disagree with your take.
"Bad ev battery" how? Dead cell? Too many unbalanced cells? How many cycles?
Yeah, I hope recycling and repair on old battery pacts gets some more research. I feel like anyone that can shorten that loop has some good money to squeeze in the future.
On the 12000 for a old minivan, I feel like that's just future were heading for regardless of EV or not. I will say, and as a guy who hates working with electrical harnesses, I would rather get a 15 year electric drive train than a gas one myself. Having worked on both they are definitely easier to figure out what's wrong!
Yeah, but parts are usually cheaper on the ice by far. If the motor of an ev goes out, you're pretty much just stuck replacing it completely.
Depends on what's wrong with a motor. If you might as well rewind it, at least personally, yeah it's not worth trying to fix, but if it's just a bearing or loose connection it's not too bad.
Lol. Why is that? As mentioned by me somewhere in this thread, I'm a fan of hybrids. Great gas mileage and the small batteries are easy and much more affordable to replace.
Oh no, ONLY half the entire population of the United States would benefit from EVs* so let's throw those cars in the trash.
the average daily commute for the vast majority of Americans is well within what can be maintained with a at home level one charger.
but you make that argument and people start wringing their hands and try to come up with other excuses, like the unimaginable horrors of extension cords or something else to continue to argue against EV.
Its a classic american tactic. "IF ITS NOT 100000% PERFECT, IMMEDIATELY AND AT THE START, THEN WE CANT DO IT!(unless it involves giving money to billionaires, of fascist dictator ships, or for the bombing of brown people)"
Spoken like someone who hasn't used an EV and hasn't actually looked into it themselves. Modern EVs work for the huge vast majority of commuters even on level 1 charging (a regular 120v home outlet). It's also much more convenient for them, as they never need to go to a gas station again.
The biggest issue is apartment dwellers. Apartment owners should be required to maintain a certain number and level of access to charging equipment per apartment. Just access to level 1 charging would likely be fine, they just have to be forced to make it available.
you don't need to plug them in so no range issues or priving unregulated EV charging station to worry about finding.
But if these cars charge their batteries by burning more gas then whats the point of having EV at all?
Power plants are more efficient at getting usable energy than your car's engine in general. There are some transmission losses, etc that favor the car, but on the balance, for the fossil fuels you burn, you'll get more car-miles if you burn them in a power plant, than in the car itself. And some of your electricity comes from wind, water, nuclear, and other clean sources, which makes electric cars even bigger winners in terms of using less fossil fuels.
Sure, I'd rather have electrified non-battery public transit than any kind of cars, but EVs are still an improvement over ICEs.
I think I didn't make my point clear. I am of course pro EV cars because of all the benefit you mentioned.
I am questioning the idea of a hybrid car that can only be charged by pumping more petrol. might as well buy a normal car and leave the batteries to the true EV car that truly need them
Hybrids are still generally more fuel efficient than equivalent non hybrids especially in non highway conditions. And you have plugin hybrids which are effectively EVs with the peace of mind that on those handful of trips that do exceed your range you can get there just fine.
Don't forget that you're toting essentially two cars in a single platform, both gas and ev. The big advantage EVs and hybrids have is regeneration, a good chunk of the energy normally lost as ambient heat in brake pads gets pumped back into the batteries.
But there's all the added weight and complexity accompanying that. The Prius appears quite reliable, so far. But I'd rather just use my bicycle or motorcycle.
They don't just charge by burning gas. The main time you burn up a lot of fuel is when accelerating from a stop and climbing a hill. That's when something like a prius will use the electric motor and battery, then just use its gas motor to cruise at a steady speed on a flat roadway. The battery will charge itself when hitting the brake or taking your foot off the accelerator and slowing down or going down a hill.
It's why the prius is popular. It's a 75 pound battery but helps provide adequate acceleration and gets 50mpg by having a small and fuel efficient gas engine.
Ya that make sense. But then their positive effect on climate is minimal. Hopefully no one would think they are half helping the planet by buying a hybrid
Full evs will fill a landfill in 15 years time and need an entire new car to be built to replace it. New 1500 lbs of lithium and Cobalt and nickel battery as well to be mined.
You want to help the environment you'd be doing far more by installing solar on your roof and buying an ice vehicle than you would be by buying an EV with today's battery tech in it. How "green" they are is only skin deep right now. That will change later when more electricity is from renewable sources and batteries in EV's improve beyond what they're at using heavy li po chemistry. But that's later. Not now.
Full evs will fill a landfill in 15 years time and need an entire new car to be built to replace
Doesn't that applies to any car? or you mean because many EV companies make it difficult to repair their product using a 3ed party? That's why we need a "right to repair bill", there is nothing fundamental in EV cars that make them non-serviceable.
New 1500 lbs of lithium and Cobalt and nickel battery as well to be mined
I agree that EVs are not as green as one might think and I am also hopefully that things will change in the future. however that doesn't mean we stick with ordinary cars for now. If no body buy EV, the companies would simply shut down and there won't be "future" to talk about.
It like solar panel they used to have terrible efficiency and lot of gas emission producing them and people were wondering if they really are any greener but had people stopped buying them back then, we wouldn't have better versions today.
