Ok what is the failure rate of evs on the market in the us under 100 000 miles? What about ice vehicles what is the rate of a major mechanical failure in that timeframe
Why electric cars are not green machines?
- Thread starter StoveInNH
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
Again, "fail" is a relative term. When has a battery failed? At what reduced capacity is it failed?
Are you asking me the same question I asked you, but you've yet to answer? C'mon . . .
You claimed most need replaced by 77k. I am just trying to figure out where you got that information
I'm being reasonable. If the range is 300 miles new, and a battery is at 70% capacity at 77,000 miles (arbitrary number), then the range is now 210 miles, and getting worse by the day, which is unacceptable for most people.
We can play with the numbers. Maybe 77k is 99k. Maybe it's not.
But the fact remains that EVs are not the green machines that most people think they are buying.
Ok but what makes you think a battery is at 70% at 77k? And at that point does it need a full replacement or just a few cells that have gone bad?
If you want to claim it's a fact that evs aren't green I think you need some accurate numbers supported by statistical analysis.
Are there environmental problems with evs? Absolutely but there simply are fewer than those with ice vehicles
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
The article states that a VW EV is not "green" until 77k. The warranty on that battery is 100k, which I believe means at least 70% capacity (I couldn't immediately confirm the percentage).
So I'm using some reasonable deduction. I contend that the battery may be 72% at 77k (who knows) in which case the value of the car is significantly less. At that point the battery needs to be replaced, which is very tough on the environment. And batteries that are replaced earlier, under warranty, will be very tough on the environment.
That article should provoke thought. It did for me.
My brain. Range is just "ok" now. Charging times are just "ok" now. With every percent of capacity lost the car is closer to being less useful without a new battery. And that will force folks to replace batteries earlier than we think.
Yeah, I know about echo chambers, aka 'Epistemic Bubbles'
Take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)
The human mind wants to build and live in a coherent, logical reality that is self-consistent. A long time ago, different tribes had different origin myths and stories to explain the world around them, that served this purpose. A problem was when other tribes had **different** systems... this was very threatening.
Nowadays we have science and engineering to tell us how the world works, and to give us machines that work based upon scientific principles. Science is actually an (imperfect) system of conflict resolution re the nature of reality. That is all it is. And it works better than other systems for that.
But ofc, it is not difficult to put together a think tank, and blow an epistemic bubble (a self consistent network of fake news) which is not consistent with science and engineering, but which has enough 'truthiness' that people will accept it. All that is required is that it reinforce something ELSE that the person wants or needs to believe are true, but which is not consistent with main-stream or accepted thinking.
I am saying that your article—which you assert is deep and revelatory and revealing, but is in fact a laundry list of common misinformation items about EVs without any sources or calculations or backup—is simply fodder for an anti-green echo chamber.
With respect, you should consider that you are in an echo chamber, a misinformation bubble disconnected from reality. I am sure that you want to have the strait deal, and live in the real world. We want to help you to get there.
One helpful approach for all of us is to try to unravel the bubble we may be in. Let's talk motivation. Why are countries all around the world switching to EVs? I can see one country with a crazy leader or bone-headed govt agency adopting a bad policy (e.g. corn ethanol in the US, massive solar rollout in Germany 10 years ago). But why would all these car makers and countries all be doing this at the same time?
I'll start. In my reality, its because their leaders can see the need to switch to EVs eventually to reduce emissions. And engineers at some car makers can see a path where eventually EVs will be cheaper than ICE cars to build and operate and maintain. So first those and then all car companies switch bc otherwise they will get outcompeted at a future date. I think that provides a reasonable, logical explanation... a combination of good public policy decisions being made by many/most countries and car companies simply looking out for their shareholders.
I am curious to hear what you think the motivation for the EV switch is. Please explain. Why would all these governments and companies be switching to EVs if they are not better for the environment? Someone is being fooled, and someone is doing the fooling. And the Daily Mail is the whistleblower. Are governments in on it (recommending something they know is bad/dumb)? Are the car companies (spending billions on tech that is stupid/useless)? Who is pushing all this?
Enlighten us on these deeper questions.
Last edited:
Your sarcasm is noted.
Why are governments pushing for EVs? Man, why do governments do a LOT of things they do. That's a rabbit hole, no?
But why are some folks embracing EVs? Lots of reasons. It's new and exciting. Technology is fun. They are gullible. They want to believe they are doing good, when perhaps they aren't. The govt is literally taking money from you to give to Joe to excite him to buy EVs. There's more, but I've only had one coffee.
Asking why governments are behind EVs? Brother, there's no way we can debate that. If that's where we're going, I'll stand down.
I never said the article was deep. I am saying that, in the echo chamber that is this website (you MUST realize that - even the mods show their bias), I thought it'd be refreshing to read. I found it so.
For what it's worth, I'm not anti-EV.
I've never seen a green EV. Lots of blue, silver and red ones though. Green was considered an unlucky color for a long time. Other than the lime 'cudas, there want any until the 90s.
British racing green has an interesting story.
(broken link removed)
British racing green has an interesting story.
(broken link removed)
I was not trying to be sarcastic, I am trying to find 'common ground'. We all do need to consider the possibility we are in an echo chamber.
People (including me) are gullible. We agree. But you are skirting the issue. Gullible people can only buy EVs if someone decides to build them, which requires billions of dollars in investments. And at the current scale, all the non-Tesla makers are not making much if any profit on every EV they sell (to my knowledge). So they must be assuming that they can keep the scam going for a loooong time to recoup their investment?
Not a debate. I told you why I think the govt were pushing EVs in my universe (bc leaders are mostly trying to make good public policy), and asking you why you think they are doing that in your universe. And you are feeling shy about answering for some reason?
Awesome. I don't think they are a panacea. I think they are a brick in a wall that needs to be rolled out over the next 20 years. And in the US a cultural pressure point. Folks don't care where their electricity comes from, so long as it shows up for a reasonable price, so greening the grid will be fast/easy when the price is right. But cars are FAMILY. And some folks keep them for 20 years. So that gets a lot of press attention, while being in the end just a small part of the global warming pie.
"Enlighten us on these deeper questions."
That's sarcasm.
I'm not feeling shy. You know. I've replied in kind on this thread and others. BUT if I debate you about govt intentions, the biased mods WILL delete my responses. Then when I complain, they'll delete yours. That's how this echo chamber works. I hope you know that. It IS an echo chamber.
Peace.
I read the article hoping to learn something, and perhaps it would have been refreshing if it contained any new information I didn't already know.
Yes, I know that lithium mining has an enormous environmental impact.
Yes, I know that heavier vehicles wear out tires faster.
Yes, I know that a lot more energy goes into manufacturing an electric car (now) than an ICE.
And yet, EVs are so much more efficient when driving that they break even on CO2 emissions after only 77,000 miles! And that number will only decrease as the electric grid decarbonizes and lithium recycling plants get their s**t together. We should be celebrating the fact that we are moving toward a less impactful way to drive around, but instead the article is painting EVs as "not green" because they still have some impact on the environment.
Not my intent. Just saying that logical systems (like our bubbles) have to go deeper and deeper. And that is how we 'test' them.
Got it. Sorry about that. Peace out.
I enjoyed the article. It's nice to see an opposing opinion.
But we've run our course here, no?
Another timely / interesting read on the EV "revolution."
www.foxnews.com
I have not read the entire Mills report yet, but hope to. It's pretty hefty reading.
"Overall, the rapid electrification of the U.S. transportation sector would increase consumer costs, make the electric grid more vulnerable to blackouts, threaten national security and may not even lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions, according to the paper titled "Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream" and authored by Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills."
Study casts doubt on electric vehicles' climate, cost benefits: 'Won't achieve the goals intended'
The massive push to increase electric vehicle adoption and restrict gas-powered car sales could inadvertently lead to higher emissions and consumer costs.
I have not read the entire Mills report yet, but hope to. It's pretty hefty reading.
"Overall, the rapid electrification of the U.S. transportation sector would increase consumer costs, make the electric grid more vulnerable to blackouts, threaten national security and may not even lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions, according to the paper titled "Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream" and authored by Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills."
Speaking of echo chambers... The Mills report from what I can tell is a myopic view at best, cherry-picking data to fit the thesis. Again, it sidesteps the enormous emissions of the process of extracting and refining fuel. The Manhattan Institute is a conservative, corporate-funded think tank. Not a small amount of the donations come from fossil fuel-based donors.
Meanwhile, the rest of the industrial world pole vaults ahead. China and most of Europe are considerably farther down this path without the catastrophic effects predicted by Mills. Even Armenia has dramatically moved toward vehicle electrification. With the rest of the world moving quickly toward electric vehicles, American auto manufacturers need to shift gears in order to remain competitive and maintain sales abroad.
Meanwhile, the rest of the industrial world pole vaults ahead. China and most of Europe are considerably farther down this path without the catastrophic effects predicted by Mills. Even Armenia has dramatically moved toward vehicle electrification. With the rest of the world moving quickly toward electric vehicles, American auto manufacturers need to shift gears in order to remain competitive and maintain sales abroad.
Which report covers all of the data in an unbiased fashion from an unbiased organization?
- Status
Similar threads
