Why so much hate over electric vehicles?

[begreen]

It’s only going to get worse considering how EV’s are being forced on us

They are not being forced. The only regs are on the state level, not for over another decade, and even then hybrids are acceptable.

But again, this is not the place to vent political opinions.

 

[Da16652]

they absolutely are being shoved down our throats. Biden signed a bill where the Army Corp of engineers are required to purchase utility EV’s to service their property. Problem is they cannot get them due to parts shortages plus they have zero charging stations. This administration is not using any common sense in the way they are forcing EV’s before the infrastructure is ready.…in the same manner they tried to force the clot shot on everybody. The price of the vehicles are far beyond what averagecAmeruicans can afford, parts and repair facilities cannot keep up.

Due to the current administration’s war against energy production the electric companies cannot keep up with the electric demand even without EV’s in every driveway. We already have brownouts now during peak usage times.

California and now other states have passed laws where manufactures will not be permitted to sell new gassers in the near future… do you not see that? Were you joking in asking ?

 

[begreen]

Calif and NY regs are timed to 2035. They permit hybrids as mentioned earlier in this thread. One can still own and drive an ICE vehicle then. And finally, these are not Federal regs.

 

[Da16652]

They are not being forced. The only regs are on the state level, not for over another decade, and even then hybrids are acceptable.

But again, this is not the place to vent political opinions.

as of now 9 States plan to ban sales of new gassers… in addition 6 others are trying to pass this.
Non plug in hybrids actually make sense but since they also use gas they will not be permitted. This is not political… it’s facts that some don’t like to be presented

 

[begreen]

Eventually horses were banned in the streets of many cities too. Oh the humanity!

 

[begreen]

Non plug in hybrids actually make sense but since they also use gas they will not be permitted.

That's a false statement for some states. Links to the actual regs are provided earlier in this thread.

 

[begreen]

The focus of these state regulations is to get to zero emissions. California and New York did the same by banning leaded gas decades ago and the result was a huge decrease in deadly smog and a massive health benefit. The world did not end and now no one remembers the change.

 

[Da16652]

That's a false statement for some states. Links to the actual regs are provided earlier in this thread.

Then I will restate… California law states the rule includes a major exception: Car companies can keep selling some plug-in hybrid vehicles, which use gasoline in addition to electricity. That’s a departure from Newsom’s earlier pledge to require 100% zero-emissions vehicle sales. Most states are following California’s example. And since it was passed by Gov Newsomes executive order it is being forced on Californians. As a moderator you have the power to do what you want but I have tried to present facts

 

[Xylem]

Based on what assumptions?
In spite of knowing that there are many more ICE fires yearly?

Unspun unfudged numbers are hard to find with so much pressure and hype for EVs. I expect the proof will be plain enough when energy gets more expensive and energy hogs are squeezed out of the market. So here's the best article I can find now:

Electric cars may be the future, but they're still critically flawed in a key area

Lithium-ion batteries require a lot of energy to produce. So, too, does the extraction and refinement of metals like lithium, nickel, and cobalt.

www.businessinsider.com

The EV makers say they want to use only green energy at their plants, but in practice I expect all the fossil fuel energy available will still be used by other consumers, since there won't be any green energy left there.

There are more ICE fires, but with less damage per fire. A battery fire that can't be extinguished, with the more toxic cloud of battery chemicals, could poison an entire neighborhood.

And while searching for numbers, I found an important point in a comment: many people can't charge their cars at home, because they live in apartments and park in underground garages, in lots, and on streets where they can't use outlets.

 

[begreen]

There are lots of quotes of that study. However the huge flaw in that study as Car and Driver pointed out is that it completely ignores the energy costs of extracting, refining, and transporting gasoline. It also ignores the ever increasing costs of climate change. Change is coming, like it or not. Interim steps may not be perfect, but they need to happen. The industry knows this. Dragging our heels is hurting the American car industry. This may affect hundreds of thousands of jobs if we fall further behind. Should we do better? Yes, definitely, and that is certainly is the trend.

 

[Da16652]

They are not being forced. The only regs are on the state level, not for over another decade, and even then hybrids are acceptable.

But again, this is not the place to vent political opinions.

California regulators approved a plan Thursday to mostly ban the sale of new gas-powered cars starting in 2035, adopting the first statewide clean-car mandate of its kind in the country.

The move formalizes an executive order that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed nearly two years ago, requiring the state to phase out the sale of cars that generate planet-warming emissions. Electric-vehicle experts called the vote historic and said it will reshape the global auto market.

 

[Da16652]

How is an executive order considered not forced ?

 

[fbelec]

Nobody is getting upset or taking things personally, but we are challenging anecdotal statements that are presented as hard truths and personal belief systems that present facts as one person's opinions. If you look again at the replies your post generated, then perhaps you see why it generated the replies it did.

It's fine to express an opinion about your risk tolerance based on what you personally have knowledge of vs. the benefit you see to the risk-taking activity (i.e., "A firefighter I know had to put out an EV fire and I wouldn't want a fire in my attached garage, and I don't really value what EVs provide anyways; therefore I don't find the risk of having an EV outweighing the benefits of having an EV."). Just don't expect that opinion to apply to everyone and/or if you don't get broad agreement on that opinion that people are taking your post personally. They are not.

Frankly, I am sure that there are plenty of people on this forum who would go skydiving because they find the reward pretty awesome and the risk really, really low. I would not go skydiving - that is not within my risk/reward formula, no matter what statistics people would give me about deaths per 100,000 for skydiving. And yet I have routinely bicycled on crowded roads in dense areas (within the last 5 years), and in wintertime with snow on the road (many years ago). That is surely more risky that falling through air from a plane (and I have one accident at 20 mph with the side of a bus to prove it), and yet I keep cycling. I also play ice hockey a couple of times a week, still, despite everyone I know telling my about that horrible hockey death in the UK a couple of months back. Everyone's risk/reward threshold is different for different things. That's fine.

There are plenty of places to go that are simply echo chambers. Some would allege that this is one of those places. I would disagree. Your opinion or beliefs might be in the minority but I think you will find that people on this forum are willing to listen if you are willing to explain. That's called a conversation. But if you simply want to state an opinion and have everyone line up to agree with you and you are frustrated when they do not, then that is not a conversation.

if you are not taking this personal why the long text

 

[bholler]

No, I didn't read all 9 pages of this thread lol. That said...

Wind and or solar doesn't produce enough electricity to charge a country full of EVs, probably never will, especially in the NE USA climate. So until someone comes up with a better mouse trap the need to burn fossil fuel to charge batteries for EVs, tools, electric stoves, water heaters, etc., will continue. Nuke would work but that's being shut down, at least in NYS. So at this point in time EVs aren't much if any cleaner to operate than gassers. EVs aren't going to have much if any affect on climate change, which is cyclical anyways so there's that.

So I could cease fiddling with small gas engines, I went from gas to electric for my weed whacker and also bought an e-chainsaw. Both work great and glad I made that choice. Key word is "choice".

How is an executive order considered not forced ?

Because you and I don't live in California so it isn't being forced on us

 

[woodgeek]

How is an executive order considered not forced ?

Because the 'ban' doesn't go into effect until 2035, and Newsom will be out of office a long time before that date arrives? And a gov executive order can be trivially reversed by the next gov, if he/she wants? So the people of CA have more than a decade to vote in someone to remove the ban, if that is what they want?

Plus the US House has already voted to overrule the CA ban:

House Passes Bill to Preserve Internal Combustion Engine - The Eno Center for Transportation

September 15, 2023 - The House of Representatives passed a bill this week that would overturn California's decision to set GHG emission targets that are predicated on an end to new internal combustion engine vehicle sales.

enotrans.org

So the people can also simply put pols in both the House and Senate sometime in the next 11 years that will ratify this Bill.

FYI, I am 100% aok with either of those outcomes. Because we don't need a 'ban' to get rid of (most) ICE vehicles by 2040, just good old capitalism.

 

[woodgeek]

Unspun unfudged numbers are hard to find with so much pressure and hype for EVs. I expect the proof will be plain enough when energy gets more expensive and energy hogs are squeezed out of the market. So here's the best article I can find now:

Electric cars may be the future, but they're still critically flawed in a key area

Lithium-ion batteries require a lot of energy to produce. So, too, does the extraction and refinement of metals like lithium, nickel, and cobalt.

www.businessinsider.com

BI article seems reasonable to me. It also says this:

In a 2015 study, the Union of Concerned Scientists found that gas-powered cars emitted almost double the emissions that contribute to global warming as electric vehicles, which can make up the difference from the manufacturing stage in six to 18 months of driving, depending on the size of the battery.

In 2018, the organization found that electric vehicles were getting even cleaner.

Driving an electric vehicle is like driving an equivalent gas-powered car that gets 80 mpg (the average for a gas-powered vehicle was 24.9 mpg for the 2017 model year, the organization found, up from 73 mpg in 2017 because of a decrease in the use of coal and an increase in the use of renewables in US energy grids.

IOW, the lifetime emissions of an EV, are currently the same as an ICE vehicle getting 80 mpg on average. And getting better as more renewables and less coal gets deployed on the US grid.

 

[Da16652]

Because you and I don't live in California so it isn't being forced on us

As this trend spreads you are not winning any argument with that logic.

 

[DBoon]

if you are not taking this personal why the long text

To provide you (and perhaps others) with another perspective.

 

[bholler]

As this trend spreads you are not winning any argument with that logic.

What trend? A couple states setting goals for the future which will be moved if the tech isn't ready??? You do realize how many things like this come and go every year?

 

[DBoon]

So at this point in time EVs aren't much if any cleaner to operate than gassers.

I too live in Central NY. The electricity in our region is 90% emissions/carbon-free (hydro, wind, solar, nuclear) over the course of a year. See this report https://www.nyiso.com/documents/201...port.pdf/471a65f8-4f3a-59f9-4f8c-3d9f2754d7de (skip to page 6 for details). East and South of us the ratio is flipped. But none of our electricity is coming from coal generation - natural gas (and maybe a little bit of oil - this isn't parsed in the data) is the fossil fuel used in NY, and woodgeek has already addressed that.

Nuke would work but that's being shut down, at least in NYS.

Downstate, yes, with Indian Point closed. One of the dumbest things NYS has done (my opinion) as it happened just before natural gas prices peaked and the replacement electricity was generated from natural gas, causing electricity rates for those folks to spike. Otherwise, the NY upstate nukes remain in operation.

 

[woodgeek]

This thread is making me laugh.

Based upon what I post (which I try to keep fact based and sourced), you can probably guess I'm a liberal. But you probably can't imagine, trust me, the lefty political material I absorb on a regular basis, whether it be liberal, Elite Ivy League, Marxist, Green, Democratic Socialist, Vegan, Degrowth, etc agit-prop.

If there is a vast left-wing conspiracy out there, I am probably privy to it, if not involved directly.

And I will tell you straight up, that the left's master plan is NOT based upon ICE bans in California and the other 15 states. That is simple pandering by DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) to their aging hippy boomer voter base. Don't be taken in.

The master plan is to capture all the billionaires (mostly accomplished, still working on the Kochs and the Murdoch boys) and to have them bankroll the whole Green New Deal with private equity money, in the private sector, at a handsome profit, using Silicon Valley tech know-how.

I don't see that on right wing media, which seems to be focussed on the false-flag operations run by Gavin, Bernie and AOC.

The only thing I see there that looks insightful to me is the claim that the left is coming for your Beef. Al Gore will deny it, but that is totally true.

 

[begreen]

as of now 9 States plan to ban sales of new gassers… in addition 6 others are trying to pass this.
Non plug in hybrids actually make sense but since they also use gas they will not be permitted. This is not political… it’s facts that some don’t like to be presented

Excellent! I'm glad that hybrids are ok and they make sense. If so, there's nothing to get worked up about. A plug-in hybrid does not need to be plugged in. One can drive it on gas all day, week, or month long without charging. Some people run them like regular gas vehicles. However, I guarantee that as soon as it's cheaper to plug it in at home rather than paying for gas, that's what one will do. And once one experiences the quiet running while electric, it's hard to go back.

The bottom line is that we all benefit from cleaner air and less CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. The main beneficiaries are our children. Transportation is a very large chunk of these emissions. All of the rest of the world's auto industries know this and are making this change, many on a schedule that is 5 yrs ahead of the US. If nothing else, think of the US jobs lost if we don't compete on the global stage.

 

[begreen]

And on that note, closing this thread. Kudos to those that have kept it out of politics for 9 pages, but that's now where it's headed.