If this is true why are fossil fuel companies advisors in charge?
In addition a Tesla may last at least 5 times longer than an ICE vehicle. Without oil changes, gas filling and distribution, engine rebuilds, mufflers, catalytic converters, transmissions, etc. it would seem that ICE vehicles are a pain the ass and very costly compared to a EV that is easily powered by solar.
The misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel cartel is starting to be exposed and any trolls who think they can BS the public and/or owners is becoming pathetic.
@Redshift. Facts and logic are not relevant to this moron. He has a mission to trash up sites. His goal is just to keep reposting the same drivel. With stupid people who believe what they want to believe it works. But what he achieves with us is that he trashes good discussion threads by cluttering it with reams of nonsense. Like the 3rd rate weatherman they post junk that has been refuted many times. But instead of correcting errors or reposting truth he just reposts the same drivel and makes an outrageous claim that we have just proven his point. The best strategy is to ignore and flag
@SCC sure flag people who don't agree with you or who prove you're wrong. Lol please do communist!
Russian troll flagged!!!
@Mike I knew this would draw you in. I hate to burst your bubble but no EV will actually last 5x longer from a time perspective. In addition to having a higher total cost of ownership today, they use ICs and SW from TODAY. ICs are going to go end of life and SW support will go away. Please let me know who is still using a MacBook from 10+ years ago! Minimally anyone who tries to keep their EV running that long will endure multiple expensive out of warranty repairs to things like the MCU. You may want to look into what it's costing the USAF to keep its F-22 fleet flying and able to integrate with more recent systems. What this means is every 5 to 7 years, a new EV will be purchased with all of the additional CO2 emissions burden of its manufacturer added to the 410ppm pile. See what happens when we discuss this outside of fairy tale land with real engineers and scientist?
My nearly 7 year old S still goes 200 miles after starting from 208. Why would I need a replacement. Wrong on that one.
I can see an aspirational motive in replacement, in that newer, better Model S is available to *upgrade*. But that’s not the same thing as *need*.
Next, you cannot change a test’s parameters mid-way. That’s just basic. Wrong on that one.
You said BEVs have more emissions, (your S vs Hummer comparison) and the link states the opposite. Wrong on that one.
Nothing more to say, is there.
Now, I need to go. As rainy and cold as it is, I’m having a lot of guests for lunch. I am making large spicy meatball Italian sauce pizzas, though I am using BeyondBurger to replace beef.
That’s how we liberals roll. ;-)
Yummy pizza dish RedShift. Never tried BeyondBurger
I don't believe the troll believes in facts that conflict with his attempt to look good using phony arguments. Don't really need to comment on the trolls; it is too obvious.
@Redshift I didn't change anything, you did and you posted a link that you THOUGHT backed you up. Except that you didn't actually read it until I copied and pasted it here. And it says just what I told you it would. Next time discuss without preconceived ideas and you can avoid this.
My nearly seven year old Model S has 168000 miles with a 230 mile battery. Enjoy Beyond Meat and the impossible because burger.
Let's see if you get to 20 years without replacing it or the car...
Tesla is not even 20 years old. Stop being so negative. A company that has been around for less than 20 years can make better cars than a company that has been making them for over a century.
You know, for an American company, American patriots are not very supportive of an American company trying to make the best product they possibly can for Americans. Kinda dumb
@Andy. Just flag the Russian troll. Would you ever waste your time trying to debate an obstinate 2 year old?
@Andy I'm on my 2nd Tesla and have a reservation for a 3rd. How do you figure that we aren't supportive? The only thing I dunt support is junk alarmist science and disengenous marketing.
Funny @Darth's assertion: "For a 2015 Compact Passenger Vehicle, the total cost of ownership over a twenty- year vehicle lifetime is $68,492 for the sample BEV model versus $47,676 for an equivalent ICEV."
Um, in 2015, which "sample BEV" did they use? The only one I can think of that would not be a Tesla is a Leaf at that time. Agreed, HV battery replacement in the Leaf is expensive. Fortunately, a Tesla is not a Leaf.
Shrillness of your arguments further highlights your desperation.
I copy pasted a whole paragraph first. That clearly concluded the emissions for BEVs were less than an equivalent ICEV.
Here it is again, for the LAST time:
RedShift | November 29, 2019
“Totally backs up what I told you”
Here is what I was trying to show, from the link:
“ Greenhouse Gas Emissions / Global Warming Poten- tial (GWP) – For a 2015 Compact Passenger Vehicle, the sample BEV model produces 105,054 pounds of green- house gas emissions (CO2-equivalents) over a full vehicle lifetime, whereas the equivalent ICEV produces 136,521 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions, a 23% advantage
in global warming potential for the BEV. For the 2015 Mid- Size Passenger Vehicle, the BEV produces 122,772 pounds of CO2-equivalents, whereas the ICEV produces 151,651 pounds, a 19% advantage in global warming potential for the BEV. BEVs and ICEVs will both produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions in 2025, but the balance will still favor BEVs.”
This was before Model 3 came into existence. If they took the Model 3 into their calculations, it would be even better for the BEVs for comparison.
I am done arguing with someone who cannot even admit to facts in the link. Carry on.
@Redshift how much more disengenous can you get? I wasn't ever discussing Model 3, I was discussing Model S. And if they took a Model 3 and compared it to a mid sized ICEV, it would be much better if at all. A 3 Series BMW can be as good as less than 120g CO2 per km. There are studies that have Model 3 higher at over 140-150g CO2 per km. ""From well to wheel, they do not really improve the situation. After all, electricity generation – including for electric cars – is still strongly dependent on fossil fuels in many EU countries. The climate does not care whether carbon dioxide comes from the exhaust pipe or whether it is released when lignite is burned to generate electricity or in energy-intensive battery production," said Dr. Jan Burgard, managing partner at Berylls in a LinkedIn statement." https://amp.interestingengineering.com/a-tesla-model-3-produces-more-co2...
@Redshift more for you: "According to physics professor Christoph Buchal, electric cars increase CO2 emissions in Germany rather than reduce them. As soon as the CO2 emissions in the production of the batteries and the German electricity mix are taken into account, the CO2 emissions of battery electric vehicles are, in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine, and are otherwise much higher than published.
Lithium, cobalt and manganese for the batteries are recovered and processed with high-energy input. A battery for a Tesla Model 3, for example, pollutes the climate with 11 to 15 tons of CO2. With a battery life of ten years and a mileage of 15,000 kilometres per year, that alone would mean 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometre, according to the findings.
Add to this the CO2 emissions of the electricity and, in reality, the Tesla has emissions between 156 and 181 grams of CO2 per kilometre - significantly more than a comparable diesel Mercedes."
Bottom line, you aren't stopping cumulative CO2 contributions with EVs. Welcome to reality!
rxlawdude. right on.
I just flag the dunce. No substance just gibberish to take up space; quite the egomaniac.It is here only to disrupt the conversation Also it is totally off topic.
Here is a more complete study. It compared the different studies done independently. A better, thorough read:
In summary: Model 3 batteries are made in Nevada, and that reduces the carbon footprint a bit. Many people going to home solar reduces the impact even further.
Note that the fuel economy studies comparing Model 3 to diesel vehicles, and showing model 3 to be similar or slightly worse than that of the diesel compatriots is based on erroneous assumptions. Namely, using the over optimistic (sometimes by more than 50%!) NEDC cycle. US EPA cycle is much more realistic.
Hence, the comparison fares much worse for ICEV vs Model 3 when comparing US vehicles.
Those Europeans! Trying to protect their auto industry! :-)
This post is not intended to further argument. I am through arguing, especially with Darth. The intention is to provide an in depth analysis of competing theories.
You wish Mike! You'll never escape the truth or reality no matter how many times you beg for censorship. EVs aren't powered by your fantasies, they aren't manufactured by unicorns and CO2 emissions are CO2 emissions whether they come from an engine or the grid. Crying flag only shows you can't defend your points so flag away!
So indeed many more people are aware of the fossil fuel propaganda speaking Truth to greed
Meaningless noise. No one that matters cares about this...
Idiot troll flagged. Go away troll!
I hope ive done enough to prove that trolls are trolls. I will take the next best step and stop providing them fuel.
Trolls who have (dark?) incentives to post here will not convince readers to abandon BEVs.
Let's get this straight. ICE vehicles produce less CO2 than do BEVs. Consequently BEVs are bad. But then, CO2 is not a cause for climate change. It's like saying the influenza virus causes more measles than does the measles virus. Then, the measles virus doesn't cause measles.
They will convince a handful here, but over 150,000 Cybertruck reservations have them spitting into the wind.
Over 250k was the last i heard from an EM tweet. Could be over 300k now.
Another common theme is ‘look how small the % of BEVs is, compared to ICEVs’ or ‘you won’t curb AGW because of BEVs’.
Talking points straight out of denier sites or media programs.
To borrow a line of Reese’s from Terminator- “but they aren’t too bright”
Only people who don't understand logistics and production volume think BEVs can have an impact. That's before we get to the fact that BEVs aren't actually carbon neutral nor are they equivalent to ICEVs from a cost or performance perspective. Ford sells an F-150 every 30 seconds. A Dodge sells a Ram every minute. Electric Pickup trucks are only just now getting started as concepts and prototypes.
Only people who can’t do math and don’t understand physics think EVs don’t have an impact on emissions.
If you do the math yourself, you'll see that EVs make little to no difference and what difference they can make is offset many times over by how many more ICEVs there are. last and most critical is that there isn't enough raw materials or EV production capacity to change that. Your effectively wasting time trying to stop emissions with EVs.
It’s only a waste of time if you can’t do math and don’t understand physics.
He needs to show there is not enough raw materials. Thats quite simple actually if he knows it to be true he knows exactly where to find a source for material content in batteries, how many batteries per pack, and the known amount of those materials in the world.
Wouldnt be the first time tho, that someone thinks there isnt enough of something in the world without actually knowing that to be true.
I bet the troll business in not a well-paying gig. If it were, there would hire people who are better at it.
Well when the CEO of both Tesla and Ford are openly saying that raw materials is still a problem, one tends to think they actually know. You guys need to do your own research...
Tesla CEO: https://www.mgxminerals.com/new-energy-economy/item/92-tesla-ceo-elon-mu...
Ford CEO: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1126230_how-many-mustang-mach-e-ele...
@Sabbia. It’s amazing how cheaply Russia did it in 2016
@SCC: They may have done it cheaply but they succeeded. The guy here is not making a dent. And why their overseers would allow them to preach to the converted only explains that they get paid by the post. Not by the word...not too many of those.
OMG. Florida GOP admits to man-made climate change.
In February, [former Governor Rick] Scott (R) acknowledged in an opinion piece that climate change “is real and requires real solutions.”
Who is going to pay the trolls now?
Perhaps the fossil fuel profits are beginning to dwindle away. Watch how all the politicians make up excuses. I don't expect any honesty.
Congratulations, I believe this individual has more courage and integrity than all the politians combined.
Who takes accountability for pollution? When our oceans are full of plastic, who is accountable?
Currently, destroying the environment has no accountability except for on occasion, people are fined.
Companies take the hit from the fine as the cost of business. Most of the time, when we see those massive dollar amounts in fines, they are only about 10% of what that company made in profit.
Hanuman Chalisa Hindi Lyrics. (https://lyricsriver.com/hanuman-chalisa-hindi-lyrics/)
Thanks @Mike83, Greta Thunberg is very deserving of the recognition, but she does not want the attention, only wants the grownups to wake up and take responsibility and act on the Climate Emergency. We need to clone her and make millions of copies.
The disgusting POTUS is such a miniscule little man who can't stand to have someone like Greta get recognition. I can't wait to see this worthless idiot impeached!https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/greta-thunbergs-subtle-clap-back-af...