S/O Energy Independence - EV

[popmom]

9 hours ago, fraidycat said:

 

You haven't derailed it at all. I share these same concerns. I'm not a fan of "tech" in vehicles. There is already too much, in my opinion.

 

 

yeah, I feel like we are a niche market ready to be exploited lol.

I may not have read every reply, but reading @BusyMom5's reply...I will add that there are so many things that factor into this equation. My uncle (now retired) spent the majority of his career as a professor (mech engineering/jet propulsion/fluid mechanics) studying energy conservation. He focused mostly on solar, but he also looked at infrastructure. Here in the US rotaries/roundabouts are pretty rare compared to other countries. He gave many a paper to local governments about the benefits of rotaries over stop signs and traffic lights at intersections. The amount of fuel conserved is NOT negligible. 

I plan to use his reasoning if I ever get stopped by the police for running a stop sign. I will plea that I'm reducing my carbon footprint by not coming to a complete stop. But y'all, I'm serious! I literally roll through stop signs (when it's clearly safe) so that I don't unnecessarily waste fuel! Thanks, Uncle Jerry (Dr. Gerald R. Guinn of University of Alabama, Huntsville). 🙂

eta: I feel like I could be the dad from Cheaper by the Dozen.

Edited March 13, 2022 by popmom

[Clarita]

In general, the answer is very complicated and even more so if you are talking about at the present. In the future, who knows where technology will be. All this and we wouldn't have even scratched the surface of the human sacrifice involved in the mining of materials, obtaining and distribution of materials for gas powered or electric vehicles.

The excitement of EV's come a lot from their potential.

1) Internal combustion engines are quite inefficient and has a low theoretical limit (I want to say somewhere < 50%). (I did not study combustion engines, so this is a statement I read in a textbook/lecture.). Electric motors theoretically can be much higher into the 90%+ (I mean if we were in a perfect world perhaps 100%). I tried to look this up but there is a lot of biased data out there so...

2)  With an internal combustion engine, you are always going to have internal combustion pollution, no matter what technology you come up with on the mining, distribution, refining end to make it environment and humane. For an electric vehicle, the vehicle itself runs clean so theoretically if you can clean up the generation of electricity it could run pollution-free. So, there's a potential there.  

We love our EV, and our hybrid vehicle. We love how they operate as cars. I did not think about their environmental impact, because I don't think the technologies are really in place that makes an electrical vehicle a hands-down winner in terms of positive environmental impact. When I'm talking to someone about why they may want an electric vehicle it's that you don't have to visit a gas station (or visit it much less in the case of the hybrid). In our day to day lives I come home with my car plug it in and the next day it's ready to take us where we need to go. For our hybrid mini-van, I have to visit the gas station every 2 months or so and I don't even fill it up all the way. (It cycles through the gas if I don't use the gas engine).

My expertise is I studied electrical engineering specifically power electronics and energy systems for my masters. Sometime in there I did learn how to make an electric vehicle go, but that's not what I ever did for work. I've worked with people who know how battery technology works but that person is really not me.  

[TechWife]

Hi @KSera! I was just watching this one go by - still keeping my eyes on the solar panel discussion.  You’ve done a great join explaining things! 

Yes to everything! Driving an EV is super easy! No problems at all on hills, flat roads, gravel roads, dirt roads. My dh has driven his in the snow & says it was easy. Range is simply not an issue - the car I’ll be getting this year hovers around 240 miles for a full charge. That’s several hours of driving. Yes, we will need to plan our route on a long trip - but who doesn’t already do that? Google maps knows where they are. Stop, plug in the car, have lunch for a bit and it’s good to go. Yes - stopping to charge a car makes the trip longer. It’s really okay. It’s a lifestyle decision. Where do I really need to go that fast that I can’t stop every four hours or so? If I have to do a long distance trip and in planning I realize that I’m not going to be able to make it between chargers then I can rent a car for a trip. Enterprise has excellent rates. 

Grid capacity- for those of you that live in areas where you think the grid can’t handle charging cars in homes - are you advocating to get your grid upgraded? It needs to be done. Talk to whatever’s political body makes that happen in your area, campaign for it and pay for it. I encourage you not to wait for another time. This really is the time. if you can’t reliably run appliances in your home there are grid problems that need to be fixed. 

DH’s car charges from empty to full in about 4 hours. On a 240v charger it uses an avg of 14 kWh to charge empty to full. This is done most often at night - not a peak time to run appliances.

For comparison:

A clothes washer takes 5.5 kwh to run for an hour. Do four hours of laundry and the kwh exceeds charging the car. This is roughly 36% more than charging our EV. 

Clothes dryer takes about 5 kWh to run for an hour. Run it for four hours on laundry day and you’ve exceeded the power usage of the car charge by 25%. 

Basically, if you can do laundry, you can charge a car. 

Repairs - what’s that? It gets an annual state required inspection and new tires when needed. It gets software updates at the dealership. The dealerships who sell the cars know how to work on them. There is no engine, so no spark plugs, no fuel injector, no muffler. Mechanics have always had to keep up with the latest thing & this is no different.
 

They had a glitch on a software check they did after car accident repairs were completed. The folks at the dealership couldn’t figure it out. An engineer from the manufacturer flew in overnight, started working on it around 730 am and the called him at 1000 to tell him it was ready. He didn’t have  to pay any extra for the engineer, either. 

 Smooth drive - it’s fun to drive, too. Lots of tech to help monitor efficiency, use the sound system,  maps etc..

One safety tip - make sure to talk to the parents of kids living nearby- tell them they must watch for your car because it doesn’t make noise and the might not know it’s coming so they must look carefully. Offer them a ride around the block when you talk to them - ev’s are still novel enough that most people have fun with that.

How did I do @KSera?

 

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by TechWife

[Clarita]

1 minute ago, TechWife said:

One safety tip - make sure to talk to the parents of kids living nearby- tell them they must watch for your car because it doesn’t make noise and the might not know it’s coming so they must look carefully.

I think the cars do emit some generated noise so animals know to avoid them but somehow people just don't avoid a giant vehicle if it's not emitting heat and much louder engine noise. I literally have people walk into my mini-van in broad daylight.

[Arcadia]

4 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 Clothes dryer takes about 5 kWh to run for an hour. Run it for four hours on laundry day and you’ve exceeded the power usage of the car charge by 25%. 

Basically, if you can do laundry, you can charge a car. 

Some of us live in condos or rental apartments. 

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, TechWife said:

How did I do @KSera?

😁 Perfect 👍. I loved the addition of some numbers.

They passed a regulation in 2020 that requires Evs to make some low noise when traveling low speeds that are usually noiseless, for safety (below like 18 miles per hour). Mine has a backup beeping chime, which I really appreciate. Obviously, that's not an ev specific feature, but I like it.

[popmom]

1 hour ago, Clarita said:

I think the cars do emit some generated noise so animals know to avoid them but somehow people just don't avoid a giant vehicle if it's not emitting heat and much louder engine noise. I literally have people walk into my mini-van in broad daylight.

This is definitely an issue. Driving my Prius at low speed in my neighborhood—pedestrians couldn’t hear me coming. I made a point to watch very carefully for them rather than expect them to watch out for me. I never “warned” anybody (my neighbors) I always assumed the burden was on me as the driver. I drive an ICE Highlander now, and I’m just as careful because we have younger families moving into our neighborhood. I feel like—when it comes to children especially—the burden is on the driver. And you can’t warn everyone in the community that you might be rolling soundlessly through the Walmart parking lot. That’s on the driver.

Edited March 13, 2022 by popmom

[popmom]

2 hours ago, TechWife said:

 

How did I do @KSera?

 

 

You didn’t ask me, so sorry about this 😉

When I read “How did I do?” Well, you did great at all the usual talking points.

I also thought…well you might be affluent. Possibly able to pay cash for a 40k+ car. Live in a single family home. Not too concerned about resell value. Live in a metropolitan area with dealers equipped for the inevitable repairs. Is this relatable at all? Not meant to offend at all… just noting the conditions that would have to be met for me personally to consider an EV.
 

I (((feel))) like I should be considered affluent due to my husband’s income. But 2-3 kids in college, multiple health problems/constant medical bills means we buy reliable, cheap USED ICE cars. There are zero “proven reliable” used EV cars on the market.
 

My husband specializes in environmental law/federal, state, local compliance. He is very knowledgeable about this topic, and it’s just not for everyone—not yet and maybe not ever. And he adores EV cars. He stays on top of this industry. If we had the money, he’d be driving an EV truck rn. 🙂
 

Bottom line for us is …it has to make sense financially. The cost of gasoline/oil changes is only one variable. 
 

Can anyone give me some info on cost to insure an all electric vehicle? Is there much difference? I remember being concerned when I bought my Prius that the insurance would be significantly higher due to the cost to repair or replace the batteries. I didn’t find that the difference was significant. What has been your experience with insuring an EV? 

Edited March 13, 2022 by popmom

[frogger]

I think there is a difference between promoting general adoption and expecting every single person to buy something now. I promote general biking/walking  infrastructure because it is environmentally friendly and healthy and makes cities nicer to live in, gives younger people and elderly more freedom, helps those who can't afford cars, and the disabled to not be dependent on rides- just so many good things. I don't expect that every single person will be able to adopt biking/walking for all purposes. In threads there is always someone who explains how impossible it is for people in their city to bike and explain to me why it is impossible to them. I usually try to make a point that more people would if the infrastructure was there even if they personally didn't and that would help congestion. Nothing is 100% but that doesn't mean you do nothing and sit around making excuses. 

Obviously, in the future things will continue to change and EVs will be easier to come by and easier to charge. My state is putting in a charging corridor to the second largest city in the state. That is one corridor in the largest  state in the country. They will not be the recommended 50 miles apart because terrain and who knows what but they managed to plan at least under 100 miles apart. Batteries have improved a ton but they will always lose some efficiency in 50 below zero weather. I would have to go 746 miles without charging to see my parents, if I don't drive back and forth at all or stop at a store. They don't even have electricity to their house and my car doesn't go to their house. I park it in a little clearing and hike to their house as they are off road. I can't even rent a car for the trip which might seem feasible since I only go once a year typically but rental agreements specifically prohibit driving on the highway that takes me to their place. That doesn't mean I don't support EV's at all, just I understand the practicality of my own situation as Popmom and Arcadia do. 

I think it is great to be excited about a new technology. I think EVs are going to be a great addition to getting us off oil which needs to be done now. I think it will continue to be a better option. Cost alone is a huge issue which I believe will be a problem for the near future. Public transit and walking infrastructure would be a cheaper alternative for people in cities. That doesn't mean the public transit can't use EVs of course. 

To those who are super excited, it is sill good to promote more use in the future. Keep up the good work, don't be discouraged that some of us don't find EVs practical yet. 

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by frogger

[TechWife]

4 hours ago, popmom said:

This is definitely an issue. Driving my Prius at low speed in my neighborhood—pedestrians couldn’t hear me coming. I made a point to watch very carefully for them rather than expect them to watch out for me. I never “warned” anybody (my neighbors) I always assumed the burden was on me as the driver. I drive an ICE Highlander now, and I’m just as careful because we have younger families moving into our neighborhood. I feel like—when it comes to children especially—the burden is on the driver. And you can’t warn everyone in the community that you might be rolling soundlessly through the Walmart parking lot. That’s on the driver.

Yes, the burden is on the driver. That is why talking to neighbors is important. Kids dash out into the street all the time!

[TravelingChris]

On 3/10/2022 at 1:37 PM, KSera said:

I also just spent more time playing with the "Power Profiler" to see what the energy sources are across the US, and it has a lot of interesting data. You can view by all sources, by percent renewables, by various emissions, etc: https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/

Renewables usage varies widely. From places using over 64% renewables and others (NYC) using less than 4% renewable energy. Definitely an area I'd love to see the US focus more on. Solar is way, way underused, looking at the data. Silly when we have a giant burning ball of energy in the sky that can provide us clean power.

I put my zip code in and it included a large area for the data.   But I am quite certain that unlike thee large area, we are almost all pollution free (including CO2).  We depend on a nuke plant and hydro-electric.  The coal plants are hours away from us, and power other places.  It seems they just lump most, if not all, of the TVA in one lump.

My issues with electric vehicles, v hybrid or normal, are a few.  If they get on fire in most locations in the US, you are talking about a huge fire going on for a day or so,.  Your liability would be so great.  (Lithium cannot be doused by water, and just keeps re-igniting and when fire departments that are huge like the one in Los Angeles have troubles, I can't even imagine what would be happening in all the small towns, rural areas, and just generally most fire departments, a great number of which are volunteer FD>  

Then there is the trouble with batteries not working well in cold weather.  I have no idea how EVs are functioning in places like Alaska. 

Furthermore, the manufacturing of EV batteries tends to be in places where the miners are children or other victimized people who aren;t getting proper safety equipment, etc.

Then the whole deal with EV is buying new cars-----we have only one car in the last 30 years that we bought new- a 2001 Toyota Tundra we still own and runs very well.  Why would we buy a 50K EV truck, even if it existed?  I am considering getting a newer Subaru but again, I would be buying used.  My Subaru is from 2006 and we bought it in 2011.  

[TravelingChris]

On 3/10/2022 at 3:49 PM, popmom said:

This is exactly what I want to do. 
 

Our electric company basically punishes us financially if we add solar making it cost prohibitive for most people. So I have been questioning whether we could add just enough solar to power a car—and be stealth about it, so the power company wouldn’t know. I’m thinking some type of semi portable set up. 

My family was one of those who keeps voting to get meaningful change at the Public Service Commission, which generally means voting for the opponent in the primary and then voting for the D in the general, because we think your power situation is so ridiculouos and those on that commission are corrupt idiots.  But then I know we are in the minority of voters-  we never just put R or D on our ballot where every seat is from the same party and never actually research the people running. We may actually be voting for all Rs but only if those are the best choices.

[Soror]

We looked very heavily at a hybrid for my "new" car. I did lots of math as to when the pay-off would be with the lower gas costs vs. higher initial costs. In the end, the ICE won, especially so when I found a very good deal on a regular one. I got it "cheap" enough that it would not pay-off to buy a hybrid one for the length of time I'll own it.  On the electric vehicles, I wouldn't have a place to charge one right now as we don't have a garage. I expect that my next vehicle will at least be a hybrid but I couldn't make the leap just yet. If we had more money I'd have loved to pay more to have something that was less to operate but I had to look at total cost- how much more up front vs. operating costs and it didn't make sense just yet. If we had higher income I'd love to just pay more and eat the extra costs and not care but too many expenses right now to ignore that-- maybe when some kids are grown and dh finally graduates and gets a promotion.

[Pawz4me]

16 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

 

Furthermore, the manufacturing of EV batteries tends to be in places where the miners are children or other victimized people who aren;t getting proper safety equipment, etc.

  

I think you're kind of confusing or conflating manufacturing the actual batteries with mining the raw materials needed to make them? But FWIW - 

Toyota to open multi-billion dollar car battery plant in North Carolina

[TravelingChris]

15 hours ago, KSera said:

I do hope you will go back and read and watch the links. There are a lot of comments here from people who have shared things they worry about, but don't have actual experience or information about. Rural areas are truly not a problem for EV cars anymore than they are for gas cars (it's actually a bigger problem for gas). If a gas station can be built somewhere, so can a charging station, but most people who live in single family homes (which is the vast majority of people living rurally) charge at home. Every time they leave the house, they have a full "tank".  I live in farm country myself. Acreage and animals.  I'm not speaking without experience.

 

I don't thin we are the only people who travel.  I don't know where you are located, but we have moved a lot back and forth in the US for 27 years and also taken many vacations that involve driving long distances.  There is rural and then there is true rural.  Much of the US is in true rural-- like no houses,. gas stations hours apart, etc.  And a number of these really rural places are complete with very cold weather at times.    There are many people like us who travel to very rural areas.  Hikers, birders, hunters, astronomy buffs, and on and on.  EVs are simply not practical in those areas.

[TravelingChris]

8 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I think you're kind of confusing or conflating manufacturing the actual batteries with mining the raw materials needed to make them? But FWIW - 

Toyota to open multi-billion dollar car battery plant in North Carolina

That is actually what I meant.  The mining, not the final manufacturing.

[Arcadia]

4 hours ago, frogger said:

Cost alone is a huge issue which I believe will be a problem for the near future. Public transit and walking infrastructure would be a cheaper alternative for people in cities. That doesn't mean the public transit can't use EVs of course. 

 

I am actually a heavy user of public transit as I don’t drive. My area’s public transit has been converting to electric vehicles. 

Below quoted for my local transit agency is just an fyi for anyone interested https://www.vta.org/blog/cec-proposes-funding-groundbreaking-vta-fleet-electrification-project

“The funding will allow VTA to complete work to deploy 1.5 megawatts of on-site solar energy at the agency’s Cerone Yard paired with a 1MW/4MWh stationary battery energy storage system and state of the art microgrid control system from Scale Microgrid Solutions. That system will help power two Proterra 1.5-megawatt fleet chargers with 34 charging dispensers. The microgrid and charging infrastructure will be linked together by a next generation switchgear and controls package designed by Schneider Electric. Clean energy generated by the new solar canopy will help lower electricity operating costs and provide increased resilience, while helping to manage stress on California’s electric grid.

In the event of a power outage, such as a public safety power shutoff, the microgrid can provide more than 24 hours of firm electric capacity to VTA, allowing emergency transit operations to continue serving the public. The clean energy microgrid will be optimized to deliver demand flexibility to VTA, helping the agency better manage its overall electricity usage while simultaneously reducing capacity constraints for the local grid.

The California Air Resources Board requires public transit agencies to transition to 100% zero-emission fleets by 2040. VTA is working to achieve this important goal by 2036.  For large fleets of vehicles, where customers need to address the challenge of charging dozens or hundreds of vehicles in a single fleet yard, Proterra’s 1.5-megawatt fleet charging system can be configured to power up to 20 vehicles simultaneously or up to 40 vehicles to charge sequentially, one after the other at full power.”

[Soror]

12 hours ago, BusyMom5 said:

I know exactly one person with an EV.  They are super-rich, and drive it only occasionally to their job.... where they have only enough charge to go direct there and back before needing another charge.  Its ridiculous.   I drive 100 miles round-trip to Wal-Mart, but often its a lot more bc I run all my errands that day.  Stop-start driving uses more energy.  Not to mentioned how hilly the drive is- its not flat roads. I'm not interested in getting an EV.  Its not practical- for many of the reasons already listed- too complicated to work on when things go wrong, no one local trained to fix it when something goes wrong, just too far out in the boonies to chance running out of a charge.  

One thing not yet mentioned- we routinely get notice from our electric company in the summer and winter that the grid is in peak use, asking customers to not use appliances.  Our infrastructure isn't there yet.   

If I were in charge, instead of focusing on EV (I'd let the market figure that out), I would focus on the least-energy usage to move things.  I think more could be moved by rail- people and goods. I'd also try to encourage everyone to use less energy every single day- turn out lights, use power strips,  etc.  I would also focus on promoting well-built items that LAST.  If z refrigerator goes out in 5 years, it creates waste for the land fill, uses many parts, metals, plastics,  shipping,  packaging.  If that refrigerator lasted 20-25 years, that's 1 instead of 4-5 that need to be made.  Multiply this for every appliance, clothes, shoes,  etc.  It really adds up! 

ITA on goods that last, especially appliances. Things that last shouldn't only be available for the richest people. WE used to make things that last but now companies purposely don't so you buy more often, it is infuriating. My last couple appliances I bought ones that cost somewhat more but are supposed to last longer. I know that was a privilege to be able to afford do that. I really wish that they'd stop adding all these stupid features to appliances too. I want a basic model that will last. I don't want it bluetooth capable. Why can't they make ones that will last without all the bells and whistles I won't use and don't want and drive up repair costs. 

On 3/10/2022 at 3:49 PM, popmom said:

This is exactly what I want to do. 
 

Our electric company basically punishes us financially if we add solar making it cost prohibitive for most people. So I have been questioning whether we could add just enough solar to power a car—and be stealth about it, so the power company wouldn’t know. I’m thinking some type of semi portable set up. 

I really, really wanted to do solar when we rebuilt but the tech/infrastructure wasn't there to make it worthwhile at that point, without eating a lot of costs which we couldn't afford. I'm still hoping to do that at some point. I've heard things have come a long way. The issue with the power company is a whole other thing, some companies are much more friendly than others but they are all going to have to adapt with the times.

[fraidycat]

ITA on appliances. I wish I had the money and knowledge to start an appliance manufacturing business. No frills, long lasting, non-electronic, old-school appliances that do what they are supposed to do. 

[KSera]

6 hours ago, frogger said:

To those who are super excited, it is sill good to promote more use in the future. Keep up the good work, don't be discouraged that some of us don't find EVs practical yet. 

I definitely understand it’s not practical for everyone yet. My issue come in when the reasons given for that are completely untrue and I always feel a need to correct those misconceptions. There are just so many of those out there and they get spread by people who just don’t actually know much about EVs and that part is a bit frustrating to me that misinformation gets spread that discourages other people from knowing that an EV could be a great solution for them. 
 

And like I said in another post, with this issue, there’s a strange dynamic where a lot of people seem very devoted to proving EVs aren’t practical (usually using the above mentioned misinformation), and I can’t put my finger on why that is. If they don’t work for someone, that’s totally okay, but why the strong push to convince others they’re not feasible, I wonder?

[popmom]

5 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

My family was one of those who keeps voting to get meaningful change at the Public Service Commission, which generally means voting for the opponent in the primary and then voting for the D in the general, because we think your power situation is so ridiculouos and those on that commission are corrupt idiots.  But then I know we are in the minority of voters-  we never just put R or D on our ballot where every seat is from the same party and never actually research the people running. We may actually be voting for all Rs but only if those are the best choices.

I appreciate you! We will probably move when our youngest graduates hs. I’ve noticed that there’s a swath of the state whose utilities are supplied by Coosa Valley Electric Co-op. It also happens to be where we’d like to end up for retirement.  I need to check what their policy is.

[frogger]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

I definitely understand it’s not practical for everyone yet. My issue come in when the reasons given for that are completely untrue and I always feel a need to correct those misconceptions. There are just so many of those out there and they get spread by people who just don’t actually know much about EVs and that part is a bit frustrating to me that misinformation gets spread that discourages other people from knowing that an EV could be a great solution for them. 
 

And like I said in another post, with this issue, there’s a strange dynamic where a lot of people seem very devoted to proving EVs aren’t practical (usually using the above mentioned misinformation), and I can’t put my finger on why that is. If they don’t work for someone, that’s totally okay, but why the strong push to convince others they’re not feasible, I wonder?

They do the same thing when I talk about public transit and better biking/walking which is why I mentioned that. 

[mommyoffive]

I just drove our new Hybrid mini van and it is so quiet when just on the battery. I will be more careful driving around the neighborhood.  I don't think I ever drove dh's EV when he had it.  It couldn't fit all the kids, so I don't think I ever did.  

[matrips]

I read this about EV, and it kind of goes along with other articles I’ve read debating the reality of its cleanliness and benefits to Mother Earth and what people have been discussing here.

———————————-

All energy is a trade off of something. Interesting that while we aren’t buying oil from Russia, we haven’t stopped buying nickel for batteries. Nothing in government is that uncomplicated. 

 
Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators.  So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
 
Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
 
Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
 
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
 
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
 
All batteries are self-discharging.  That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
 
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
 
But that is not half of it.  For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs. 
 
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk.  It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
 
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."
 
Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"
 
I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not.  This construction project is creating an environmental disaster.  Let me tell you why.
 
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
 
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.
 
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.  

 "Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye.  

[matrips]

So I haven’t checked the numbers in the article above, but generally, this side of going green is not discussed or advertised.  Many many people think it’s completely harmless and clean. I think we should be educated about all types of energy.

[popmom]

45 minutes ago, matrips said:

So I haven’t checked the numbers in the article above, but generally, this side of going green is not discussed or advertised.  Many many people think it’s completely harmless and clean. I think we should be educated about all types of energy.

Do you have a link to the source?

[matrips]

1 minute ago, popmom said:

Do you have a link to the source?

I don’t, no.  I’m sorry.

[popmom]

1 hour ago, matrips said:

I don’t, no.  I’m sorry.

I sent screen shots of your article to my husband. He thinks that is a fair assessment. (even as pro EV as he is)

He had some info to add.

About the windmill blades--there are ways of "recycling" the blades rather than them ending up in a landfill. It involves using large crushers to crush the blades into a material that can be reused as a filler material for something. Although he would say (and I think most agree) wind is the least efficient way of generating electricity. But regarding the blades--No industry wants waste. They are always working toward solutions--viable ways to reuse the materials--because that increases profits AND it's the right thing to do. 

About batteries in landfills. DH believes the opposite is true--that most of those batteries ARE in fact recycled. Speaking only about landfills in the U.S.--landfills are subject to extremely strict regulations. They are lined, so it is highly unlikely that the surrounding environment would be contaminated by any batteries that do end up there. 

About the sheer volume of material required/mined... Those numbers can be deceiving. They have to move a large volume of material, but most of that material can be put back in the pit and the land later reclaimed. Dh has worked on many reclamation projects. It's one of the most rewarding parts of his job. 🙂 Admittedly if all this is going on in other parts of the world, who knows how those mines are being regulated. 

Source: hubby, BS ME, MS civil engineering, currently works environmental compliance in the mining/aggregate/asphalt/paving industries.

Edited March 14, 2022 by popmom

[Clarita]

A lot of the things @matrips discussed is factors to consider before getting on the high horse of "I own an EV look how environmentally friendly I am". 

1 hour ago, matrips said:

Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.

This part I disagree with.  There is an efficiency difference between an electric engine vs. an internal combustion engine. Since internal combustion engine is less efficient than an electric engine, the actual energy it takes to really move a 5000 lb car is more for a gas car vs. an electric car. You can tell this because a gas powered vehicle is warmer than an electric vehicle. "Lost" energy is lost as heat. 

[popmom]

40 minutes ago, Clarita said:

A lot of the things @matrips discussed is factors to consider before getting on the high horse of "I own an EV look how environmentally friendly I am". 

This part I disagree with.  There is an efficiency difference between an electric engine vs. an internal combustion engine. Since internal combustion engine is less efficient than an electric engine, the actual energy it takes to really move a 5000 lb car is more for a gas car vs. an electric car. You can tell this because a gas powered vehicle is warmer than an electric vehicle. "Lost" energy is lost as heat. 

This all becomes a bit circular. EVs typically weigh more than their ICE counterparts of the same size (passenger/cargo space) due the batteries, etc, etc. Weight alone isn't the best comparison.

Whenever I see these discussions, I think back to my first car. It was a 1981 Honda Civic hatchback. 4 cyl engine w/ a whopping 55 HP. 5 speed manual transmission. I averaged up to 50 mpg--definitely higher than the EPA estimates on it. (I've never been a lead foot)  It had enough pep to merge onto interstates without any trouble--especially due to the manual transmission. The curb weight of a current Civic hatch is nearly double the one I drove. The current model gets 32 mpg combined. Cars just keep getting bigger, heavier, more feature laden, more powerful. It's getting ridiculous. You would think the industry could find a balance. Imagine if Honda could use all of the improvements in efficiency in the current engine while finding a way to reduce the curb weight... 

Edited March 14, 2022 by popmom

[PaxEtLux]

1 hour ago, matrips said:

Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one.

 

I'm sorry, but no, this is not what Einstein's famous equation means.  At all.

[KSera]

1 hour ago, matrips said:

So I haven’t checked the numbers in the article above, but generally, this side of going green is not discussed or advertised.  Many many people think it’s completely harmless and clean. I think we should be educated about all types of energy.

Did you read any of the early links in this thread discussing most of the issues raised by whoever wrote what you posted? The author has a lot of things they don't understand about EVs (one basic one being what @Clarita notes about the efficiency difference between electric engines and gas powered engines--gas engines are highly inefficient, converting only a minority of the energy stored in gasoline into power, while electric engines are highly efficient and convert the majority of energy stored into power. The article also talked only about the upstream costs of making batteries, without any attention to the upstream costs of just extracting oil from the ground in the first place, which requires a tremendous amount of electricity.

21 minutes ago, Clarita said:

A lot of the things @matrips discussed is factors to consider before getting on the high horse of "I own an EV look how environmentally friendly I am".

While this is probably a thing for some people, the majority of people (self included) who own and talk about their EVs do so because they genuinely love how great they are to own and drive, rather than any kind of high horse, and want others to experience that as well and not be dissuaded by all the misinformation and ev hate that is so rampant out there. I honestly don't know anyone with one who comes across that way at all, though as I say, I'm sure they exist out there.

 

[Laura Corin]

On 3/13/2022 at 1:11 AM, KSera said:

Definitely. A standard outlet doesn’t charge very quickly, but putting in a faster home charger totally does the trick. We were fortunate that the previous owners of our house had a 240V shop outlet in the garage, so I just charge off that. I don’t remember what I calculated the time is at home for a full charge from empty to full, but it’s definitely much less than overnight, so I always have a full battery in the morning. 

I hadn't considered that the UK had a set-up advantage because all sockets are 240v

On 3/13/2022 at 6:14 AM, Arcadia said:

I am just whining more about insufficient number of charging stations to support a densely populated area.  We drive to libraries in other cities when we have a power outage to make use of their WiFi to do school and office work. We are lucky not to have intentional rotating outages in our city.

I was in Central London recently, and a lot of street lights had been re-engineered as vehicle charging stations.  That seemed like a good solution for housing areas with no garages. 

When we lived in China, you had to watch out for wires that trailed out of houses and businesses to recharge electric scooters.

[KSera]

11 hours ago, matrips said:

read this about EV, and it kind of goes along with other articles I’ve read debating the reality of its cleanliness and benefits to Mother Earth and what people have been discussing here.

 

 

10 hours ago, popmom said:

Do you have a link to the source?

It struck me this morning it would be easy to track down the source by searching for the text, and it was. As I expected, it was written by someone with a lot of other conspiracy theories and uninformed opinions. He’s a random guy with a substack with such things as antivax, Covid was manufactured by the government to take away our freedoms stuff and videos of Tucker Carlson that he headlines “Watch this: Extremely Important”. In other words, pretty much what I expected. He has several anti EV pieces. (He prefers his GMC 1500.) The piece pasted in this thread was written yesterday and subsequently copy and pasted to Facebook where people shared it around, unattributed. 

[Pam in CT]

Agendas and conspiracy theories aside, I do concur that when considering the extent to which EVs can help us move toward energy independence (as a national security goal) or less carbon usage (as a climate change goal, which in turn has its own national security implications over a longer term), we have to consider where the electicity the EVs use comes from. The composition of the grid matters.  I mean, to take it out to hypothetical extremes where the math is easy: if 100% of the population used only EVs, but 100% of the grid they charged on were powered by oil and gas... then 100% of our cars would still be 100% oil & gas dependent; it would just be coming in and mediated by a different system, right?

To the extent that EV engines operate with less energy loss than gas engines, the TOTAL amount of oil & gas would be lower.  But the PERCENTAGE of oil & gas would still be 100%.

Nationwide, the US Energy Information Association estimates that in 2021 this was how our electricity generation was distributed (wide variations as you drill down into specific regions):

(which suggests that the 40% coal figure in @matrips ' article must be either quite dated, or incorrect).

Nonetheless, on average throughout the US, EV cars are powered by electricity that is ~61% fossil-fuel based. That's less than all-fossil fuel based; and to the (pretty well established) extent that their engines entail less waste than gas engines, they are "better" in terms of fossil fuel(=climate change) usage; and even more so in terms of oil & gas usage (=import dependence) specifically.  But they are not ALL GREEN, nor are they without other environmental and ethical tradeoffs like battery components and/or manufacture and/or waste.

Every decision has tradeoffs. There's no such thing, in any realm, where one option is **perfect** compared to other choices with adverse tradeoffs.

 

re how municipalities can serve renters / apartment dwellers without access to their own charging capacity:

6 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

I hadn't considered that the UK had a set-up advantage because all sockets are 240v

I was in Central London recently, and a lot of street lights had been re-engineered as vehicle charging stations.  That seemed like a good solution for housing areas with no garages. ...

Shortly before COVID descended, I was in El Salvador; and throughout the three regions I traveled in, gas stations & supermarkets & highway rest stops had these open-air covers over the parking lots, with solar panels on top and charging stations inside. Super-simple idea that doubtless doesn't solve ALL the issues throughout ALL the country for ALL the drivers.  But better is better.

 

11 hours ago, Clarita said:

A lot of the things @matrips discussed is factors to consider before getting on the high horse of "I own an EV look how environmentally friendly I am". ...

I don't really understand this.

(Some) folks on WTM enthuse constantly about InstaPots or crock pots, or coupon apps, or Soda Streams or garden implements or etc.  It is natural, for people who really appreciate an item they use frequently, to expound often about its merits.

Is that kind of enthusiasm "High Horse Look How Whole Foods Attentive I Am" or "High Horse Look How Frugally Clever I am"? 

Or is the assessment that it's High Horse lookameeeee limited to environmental consciousness?

 

[TechWife]

Here are two recent pieces on sourcing metals for batteries, including EV batteries. I found them to be very interesting - it's really a worldwide effort, which creates the interdependence that we've discussed in this thread.

How a Battery Shortage Could Threaten US National Security

Biden's Sanctions of Russian Energy Give Electric Vehicles a Pass

[Pam in CT]

re swapping one import with national security ramifications for another import also with national security ramifications

4 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Here are two recent pieces on sourcing metals for batteries, including EV batteries. I found them to be very interesting - it's really a worldwide effort, which creates the interdependence that we've discussed in this thread.

How a Battery Shortage Could Threaten US National Security

Biden's Sanctions of Russian Energy Give Electric Vehicles a Pass

Thanks for these - lots to noodle over.

 

re lithium and cobalt used for EV batteries (from the first link): sourced from Argentina & Chile, much of which, via China:

Quote

The United States sources about 90% of the lithium it uses from Argentina and Chile, and contributes less than 1% of global production of nickel and cobalt, according to the Department of Energy. China refines 60% of the world's lithium and 80% of the cobalt. Those metals are critical for electric vehicles.

 

Re nickel used for EV batteries (from the second link): sourced from Canada, but current prices reflect Russian invasion even despite nickel's exclusion from sanctions:

Quote

The International Energy Agency forecast earlier this year that nickel demand in electric vehicles will grow by a factor of eight from 2020 to 2030.

The United States produced 0.7% of nickel worldwide in 2020 and 2021, while Russia produced 10%. Most of the US's nickel is imported from Canada.

 

Nickel prices reached record highs this week even without sanctions on Russian nickel.

Some metals experts attribute the highs to a "short squeeze," which is when investors betting a price will fall abandon their wager because the price is increasing. Giving up on their bet against the price requires buying more of it.

 

OTOH, re palladium used for gas vehicles: significantly sourced from Russia:

Quote

(The US imports 35% of its palladium, a critical element in catalytic converters, a component in gas-powered vehicles, from Russia, more than any other country.)

Suggesting, pick your poison...

 

 

[Laura Corin]

47 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Shortly before COVID descended, I was in El Salvador; and throughout the three regions I traveled in, gas stations & supermarkets & highway rest stops had these open-air covers over the parking lots, with solar panels on top and charging stations inside. Super-simple idea that doubtless doesn't solve ALL the issues throughout ALL the country for ALL the drivers.  But better is better.

 

Scotland is a bit low on serious sunshine, unfortunately.  We do have wind, water and coastline, however, so in our case, the renewable energy is mostly be generated in large quantities and then distributed.  We are currently at about 97% equivalent capacity of renewables: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56530424

 

[Pam in CT]

re Scotland: 37% to 97% renewable electricity over just ten-year period

6 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Scotland is a bit low on serious sunshine, unfortunately.  We do have wind, water and coastline, however, so in our case, the renewable energy is mostly be generated in large quantities and then distributed.  We are currently at about 97% equivalent capacity of renewables: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56530424

Wow. 

That is a seriously impressive turnaround:

Quote

New figures reveal it reached 97.4% from renewable sources.

This target was set in 2011, when renewable technologies generated just 37% of national demand.

Industry body Scottish Renewables said output had tripled in the last 10 years, with enough power for the equivalent of seven million households.

Chief executive Claire Mack, said: "Scotland's climate change targets have been a tremendous motivator to the industry to increase deployment of renewable energy sources.

"Renewable energy projects are displacing tens of millions of tonnes of carbon every year, employing the equivalent of 17,700 people and bringing enormous socio-economic benefits to communities."

How was the turnaround effected so quickly? Who owns the electricity grids, how were the new wind & hydro projects financed, how are power rates set or regulated (and etc)? 

[Laura Corin]

8 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re Scotland: 37% to 97% renewable electricity over just ten-year period

Wow. 

That is a seriously impressive turnaround:

How was the turnaround effected so quickly? Who owns the electricity grids, how were the new wind & hydro projects financed, how are power rates set or regulated (and etc)? 

I really don't know much. I think it's public and private financing. 

[Laura Corin]

27 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re Scotland: 37% to 97% renewable electricity over just ten-year period

Wow. 

That is a seriously impressive turnaround:

How was the turnaround effected so quickly? Who owns the electricity grids, how were the new wind & hydro projects financed, how are power rates set or regulated (and etc)? 

I found a bit more information here: https://energypost.eu/scotland-finances-renewables-revolution/

and here: https://energypost.eu/exciting-changes-taking-place-scotlands-energy-system/

[prairiewindmomma]

Scientific American this month has an article on a new way in which they are extracting lithium more efficiently from briny water. It's actually a fascinating read. There's an Australian company mining lithium in southern Oregon, it's a rather new setup that is finally making sense financially as opposed to importing the material. This article isn't exactly on point, it's more talking about the caldera on which the lithium is found, but it's relevant enough I'm going to link it: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/16/lithium-oregon-mcdermitt-caldera-deposit-nevada/

They are mining cobalt in Nevada and a few other places in the US: https://newworldres.com/goodsprings-copper-cobalt-project  Here's more on cobalt in the US: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020-cobalt.pdf  Note that part of the reason funding hadn't moved forward was because of a dip in global cobalt prices a few years ago.

Palladium is actually the gotcha metal, imo, and i mentioned that in the Ukraine thread early on. Palladium is primarily coming out of Russia, though South Africa has significant stores as well. There's only one US palladium mine, in Montana of all places. Manufacturers are working their way around high palladium prices; notably a lot of car manufacturers switched from lining catalytic converters with palladium to lining them with platinum in 2020. More palladium is actually used in hybrid cars than in EV ones since hybrid cars also have catalytic converters.  As recently as 2016, palladium was trading under $600/ounce; prices really went crazy in 2020 with covid. 

 

[Clarita]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

I don't really understand this.

(Some) folks on WTM enthuse constantly about InstaPots or crock pots, or coupon apps, or Soda Streams or garden implements or etc.  It is natural, for people who really appreciate an item they use frequently, to expound often about its merits.

Is that kind of enthusiasm "High Horse Look How Whole Foods Attentive I Am" or "High Horse Look How Frugally Clever I am"? 

Or is the assessment that it's High Horse lookameeeee limited to environmental consciousness?

It's not just an "I love my car it's a great car enthusiasm". I have met people who spoke as if they were saving the world because they bought a new car. How dare someone else still be driving an old Civic that runs on gas. I guess it's just don't make environmental impact the reason you buy a gas car vs an electric vehicle. Pick a car that works for you. Maybe 100 years from now it will be an environmental impact change but not today.

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

But they are not ALL GREEN, nor are they without other environmental and ethical tradeoffs like battery components and/or manufacture and/or waste.

Every decision has tradeoffs. There's no such thing, in any realm, where one option is **perfect** compared to other choices with adverse tradeoffs.

Absolutely. In this case, I think it's a strong case of what Sneezyone said recently in another thread, "Better is better". Especially when we are facing an emergent situation with global warming and need to cut emissions as much as we can as soon as we can. Waiting until we have something that has zero reliance on non-renewable energy means waiting too long to start changing the course of what will happen. We can make a big difference starting now, and hopefully just keep improving from there.

I ended up reading all kinds of EV stuff this morning, and I thought this one was especially relevant for the OP, @fraidycat. It's a really interesting study looking at the indirect emissions from both electric and gas powered vehicles done at Yale that finds:

Quote

But a recent study from the Yale School of the Environment published in Nature Communications found that the total indirect emissions from electric vehicles pale in comparison to the indirect emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles. This is in addition to the direct emissions from combusting fossil fuels — either at the tailpipe for conventional vehicles or at the power plant smokestack for electricity generation — showing electric vehicles have a clear advantage emissions-wise over conventional vehicles.

https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/yse-study-finds-electric-vehicles-provide-lower-carbon-emissions-through-additional?utm_source=YaleToday&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=YT_Yale Today Alum no Parents_1-13-2022

1 hour ago, Laura Corin said:

Scotland is a bit low on serious sunshine, unfortunately.  We do have wind, water and coastline, however, so in our case, the renewable energy is mostly be generated in large quantities and then distributed.  We are currently at about 97% equivalent capacity of renewables: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56530424

 

That is super impressive! Among the many things I read this morning was a recent NYT article about the sales of electric vehicles having surpassed Diesel in Europe. EVs accounted for more than 20 percent of new cars dold in Europe and Britain in December : https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/17/business/electric-vehicles-europe.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-electric-vehicles&variant=show&region=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_top_links_recirc

I thought this was a good article as well, especially as pertains to the game changer Fords F150 Lightening is likely to be: Why This Could Be a Critical Year for Electric Cars

 

And then this one, highly relevant to this thread as well, on the race to develop new, better battery technology:

Carmakers Race to Control Next-Generation Battery Technology The prize: batteries that would be cheaper, faster to charge and less vulnerable to raw material shortages. Whoever gets there first will have a major advantage.

 

 

[KSera]

10 minutes ago, Clarita said:

Maybe 100 years from now it will be an environmental impact change but not today.

How is that?

[Pam in CT]

re saving the world by sitting atop High Horses

11 minutes ago, Clarita said:

It's not just an "I love my car it's a great car enthusiasm". I have met people who spoke as if they were saving the world because they bought a new car. How dare someone else still be driving an old Civic that runs on gas. I guess it's just don't make environmental impact the reason you buy a gas car vs an electric vehicle. Pick a car that works for you. Maybe 100 years from now it will be an environmental impact change but not today.

Huh.

(...looking around hopefully; sadly ascertaining that World Remains Not-Yet-Saved...)  Well, I can see that such evangelism would be annoying. Happily I haven't come across such EV evangelism myself.

Do you find evangelism for the cost savings accrued by growing and canning one's own vegetables, or baking one's own bread, or composting or coupon-ing or etc similarly annoying?

 

(And maybe it does get back to all-or-nothing absolutism, if a policy or consumer choice doesn't solve 100% of a problem it's not worth doing at all, vs a more loosey-goosey conviction that small marginal efforts add up to Better even if they don't get to Perfect.  At a zillion foot, forest view, if EVs *waste less energy* then *less energy is needed.*  That is an environmental impact, even though it does not vanish the problem and even though there are other effects around minerals and waste disposal.  As surely as my recycling and composting has an environmental impact even though it definitely does not vanish the macro-level problems of household waste disposal.)

 

re Eyes on the Prize: Batteries

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

...And then this one, highly relevant to this thread as well, on the race to develop new, better battery technology:

Carmakers Race to Control Next-Generation Battery Technology The prize: batteries that would be cheaper, faster to charge and less vulnerable to raw material shortages. Whoever gets there first will have a major advantage.

Yeah, energy storage really looks to be where the breakthrough insights will come from.

Did you read Longitude?  I'm hoping for that kind of unexpected out-of-the-box sideways thinking from a wholly unexpected source. Bring on the clockmakers!

[KSera]

40 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Did you read Longitude?

I did not (*off to look that up*).

 

eta: (*back from looking it up*) I don't know how I missed that one when my oldest was in high school. Would have gone perfectly with some of their studies. I have a current high schooler who I think would enjoy it a lot as well, so I'm off to put it on hold at the library. Thanks for mentioning!

Edited March 14, 2022 by KSera

[Clarita]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

How is that?

No real reason. It's just a random statement that as of today it'n not a huge difference whether you choose to buy a new EV or a new ICE. Pick a car you like. In the future I have no idea where technology will be. Maybe those technologies will mean there's a huge difference then. 

[KSera]

25 minutes ago, Clarita said:

No real reason. It's just a random statement that as of today it'n not a huge difference whether you choose to buy a new EV or a new ICE. Pick a car you like. In the future I have no idea where technology will be. Maybe those technologies will mean there's a huge difference then. 

I was curious because everything I'm reading indicates even today it's a significant difference, and the more people who are able to make the switch, the better it is for our air quality (Did you read the Yale study quoted several posts above?). In UK, they have already seen an increase in air quality attributed to the lowered emissions due to the adoption of electric vehicles there.

From one of the study authors:

Quote

According to Wolfram, the study shows that “the elephant in the room is the supply chain of fossil fuel-powered vehicles, not that of electric vehicles.” He notes that the faster we switch to electric vehicles, the better — at least in countries with a sufficiently decarbonized electricity supply, like the U.S. 

 

eta: And just to make clear, this isn't meant to say that everyone needs to switch to an electric vehicle right away (that's clearly not possible), but to say that it doesn't make any difference to the environment whether someone chooses EV or ICE if they are choosing a new car today just isn't true.

Edited March 14, 2022 by KSera

[Arcadia]

@Pam in CT In my area, Tesla had a snob appeal when they first launch. It was more of a status symbol thing until it became mainstream. I do know quite a few people who bought EVs because they want to park at the EV parking lots which are next to the handicap parking lots. Of course with more people owning EVs, even those lots are demand more than supply now.

@KSera my husband is thinking of converting our gas stove to induction stove because of air quality issues. We do get power outages from time to time mostly because someone’s tree down a power line. Though we typically leave the house if power is out for more than an hour. Mine is a condo so solar isn’t feasible. My gas stove does have an exhaust hood.

I find this October 2021 NPR article a good read

We need to talk about your gas stove, your health and climate change

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1015460605/gas-stove-emissions-climate-change-health-effects

”If you have an electric stove, the energy for cooking may come from fossil fuels, but the combustion happens at a power plant far away, Kephart says. "When you have a gas stove, that combustion is actually occurring right in your kitchen — you can see the blue flame down there," he says. "There is no smoke-free combustion."

The most common pollutants from gas stoves are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide and formaldehyde. Advocates now are mostly focused on NO2, which the Environmental Protection Agency says is a toxic gas that even in low concentrations can trigger breathing problems for people with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

To learn how much NO2 Kephart's gas stove releases, NPR rented an air monitor.

… At first, the air monitor shows background levels in Kephart's kitchen are about 24 parts per billion (ppb). That's expected for a home with a gas stove, but still higher than the World Health Organization (WHO) annual average guideline of 5 ppb. The EPA does not have standards for indoor NO2 levels.

Kephart starts by boiling a pot of water and baking blueberry muffins. "So this is supposed to be a very normal scenario of cooking a meal in the kitchen: We have the oven on 375 and one stove burner on," he says.

After 12 minutes, the monitor starts to spike, showing NO2 levels of 168 ppb. "So now we have exceeded the [WHO] hourly guideline of 106 ppb by about 50%," says Kephart. "If you have kids or any sort of lung condition, this is at a level where, in the literature — in the science — we have seen people start to have these changes in their lungs that could give them worse symptoms or could worsen their disease."

After half an hour, the air monitor shows 207 ppb — nearly twice the WHO guideline.”