EV have more quality issues than gas ones and are not better for the environment.

V

volsrock

Verified User
Two recent studies have shown that electric vehicles have more quality issues than gas-powered ones and are not better for the environment.


According to J.D. Power, owners of electric or hybrid vehicles cite more problems than do owners of gas-powered vehicles. The latter vehicles average 175 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100), hybrids average 239 PP100, and battery-powered cars — excluding Tesla models — average 240 PP100. Tesla models average 226 PP100. Given the average cost of an electric car is roughly $60,000, about $20,000 more than the cost of a gas-powered car, it seems owners of EVs didn’t get the value they deserve.


Electric Vehicles Are Worse for the Environment

Besides quality issues, a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that electric vehicles are worse for the environment than gas-powered ones. By quantifying the externalities (both greenhouse gases and local air pollution) generated by driving these vehicles, the government subsidies on the purchase of EVs, and taxes on electric and/or gasoline miles, researchers found that “electric vehicles generate a negative environmental benefit of about -0.5 cents per mile relative to comparable gasoline vehicles (-1.5 cents per mile for vehicles driven outside metropolitan areas).”


Researchers specifically pointed out that despite being treated by regulators as “zero emission vehicles,” electric cars are not emissions-free. Charging an EV increases electricity demand. Renewal resources supply only 20 percent of the country’s electricity needs. The remaining 80 percent were generated by fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, despite billions of dollars in green subsidies.


https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/1...-worse-for-the-environment-and-lower-quality/



WHOOPS
 
41XFukd9P6L._AC_SY1000_.jpg
 
Raise the driving age to 21. Lower speed limits to 45. 3 year DL suspension for DWI or DWT.

Such measures would drastically reduce gas consumption and also save lives. Hell with EVs.
 
The toxins produced in the manufacture of EV batteries are REAL POLLUTION/CONTAMINATION ,unlike the CO2 "boogeyman".
 
volsrock said:
Two recent studies have shown that electric vehicles have more quality issues than gas-powered ones and are not better for the environment.


According to J.D. Power, owners of electric or hybrid vehicles cite more problems than do owners of gas-powered vehicles. The latter vehicles average 175 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100), hybrids average 239 PP100, and battery-powered cars — excluding Tesla models — average 240 PP100. Tesla models average 226 PP100. Given the average cost of an electric car is roughly $60,000, about $20,000 more than the cost of a gas-powered car, it seems owners of EVs didn’t get the value they deserve.


Electric Vehicles Are Worse for the Environment

Besides quality issues, a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that electric vehicles are worse for the environment than gas-powered ones. By quantifying the externalities (both greenhouse gases and local air pollution) generated by driving these vehicles, the government subsidies on the purchase of EVs, and taxes on electric and/or gasoline miles, researchers found that “electric vehicles generate a negative environmental benefit of about -0.5 cents per mile relative to comparable gasoline vehicles (-1.5 cents per mile for vehicles driven outside metropolitan areas).”


Researchers specifically pointed out that despite being treated by regulators as “zero emission vehicles,” electric cars are not emissions-free. Charging an EV increases electricity demand. Renewal resources supply only 20 percent of the country’s electricity needs. The remaining 80 percent were generated by fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, despite billions of dollars in green subsidies.


https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/1...-worse-for-the-environment-and-lower-quality/



WHOOPS
Click to expand...

WHOOPS is right...

Renewal resources supply only 20 percent of the country’s electricity needs. The remaining 80 percent were generated by fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, despite billions of dollars in green subsidies.
Click to expand...

Unless nuclear power plants are powered by fossil fuels, the Federalist has included at least one lie in their "story".

outlet-graph-large.jpg
 
Dems and cons passed bipartisan EV charging station infrastructure yet no one here complained. Who do you think will be forced to pay for it?
 
goat said:
Dems and cons passed bipartisan EV charging station infrastructure yet no one here complained. Who do you think will be forced to pay for it?
Click to expand...

I like what N. Carolina is doing. They won't allow publicly financed EV stations unless gas stations get equal subsidization. That pretty much kills off the whole charging station thing making EV's highly impractical within that state.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I like what N. Carolina is doing. They won't allow publicly financed EV stations unless gas stations get equal subsidization. That pretty much kills off the whole charging station thing making EV's highly impractical within that state.
Click to expand...
North Carolina knows that big oil is heavily invested (dependent) on EV infrastructure so it's a win-win.
 
ExpressLane said:
Since the West is running low on water is hydro truly renewable. Have you looked at Lake Mead lately?
Click to expand...

We are adding wind and solar faster than hydro is disappearing.
In 2006 Iowa got 5% of its electricity from wind.
In 2020 Iowa got 57% of its electricity from wind.
https://iub.iowa.gov/iowa-utility-electric-profile-2006
https://iub.iowa.gov/iowas-electric-profile


But that still doesn't answer the question of whether nuclear is a fossil fuel or not. Should we rely on someone that thinks nuclear is a fossil fuel for our talking points?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
We are adding wind and solar faster than hydro is disappearing.
In 2006 Iowa got 5% of its electricity from wind.
In 2020 Iowa got 57% of its electricity from wind.
https://iub.iowa.gov/iowa-utility-electric-profile-2006
https://iub.iowa.gov/iowas-electric-profile


But that still doesn't answer the question of whether nuclear is a fossil fuel or not. Should we rely on someone that thinks nuclear is a fossil fuel for our talking points?
Click to expand...

Well, we shouldn't be listening to ANYONE who thinks or says wind and solar can supply our energy needs. Anyone who claims that is either being disingenuous for nefarious reasons, is a technical idiot, or is simply an oblivious moron.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, we shouldn't be listening to ANYONE who thinks or says wind and solar can supply our energy needs. Anyone who claims that is either being disingenuous for nefarious reasons, is a technical idiot, or is simply an oblivious moron.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the difference between providing a large percentage vs providing 100%. No one has ever claimed that wind and solar can provide 100% of electricity 100% of the time. It clearly can provide the majority of electricity and at a rate much cheaper than you claim is possible.

Iowa gets 57% of its electricity from wind. The price of electricity in Iowa is $0.1173 per KWH. That is something you have failed to address after you claimed it would always result in higher electrical costs. It seems that you are the one that is being disingenuous for nefarious reasons or are simply a moron.

Several states have plans to get the majority of their electricity from renewables by 2050. I would bet we won't see major increases in electricity prices in those states compared to states that don't use renewables.

In 2021, renewable resources provided about 82% of South Dakota's total utility-scale electricity net generation. Wind surpassed hydroelectric power for the first time and accounted for about 52% of total generation, the second-largest share among the states.
Click to expand...
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=SD#tabs-4
Electric prices in SD were $0.1135 per kwh
https://quickelectricity.com/cost-of-electricity-per-kwh-by-state/
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You don't seem to understand the difference between providing a large percentage vs providing 100%. No one has ever claimed that wind and solar can provide 100% of electricity 100% of the time. It clearly can provide the majority of electricity and at a rate much cheaper than you claim is possible.

Iowa gets 57% of its electricity from wind. The price of electricity in Iowa is $0.1173 per KWH. That is something you have failed to address after you claimed it would always result in higher electrical costs. It seems that you are the one that is being disingenuous for nefarious reasons or are simply a moron.

Several states have plans to get the majority of their electricity from renewables by 2050. I would bet we won't see major increases in electricity prices in those states compared to states that don't use renewables.


https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=SD#tabs-4
Electric prices in SD were $0.1135 per kwh
https://quickelectricity.com/cost-of-electricity-per-kwh-by-state/
Click to expand...

Iowa is a special case, shit for brains!!
 
Primavera said:
Iowa is a special case, shit for brains!!
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO..

And SD is as well? And so is Colorado? and so is Nevada? and so is North Dakota?

Why are they all special cases?

SD - 57% from wind - $0.1135 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=SD
ND - 42% from wind - $0.1003 (The cheapest power of any state.)
OK - 41% from wind - $0.1121 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=OK
NM - 30% from wind, - $0.1344
NV - 18% from solar - 33% from renewables - $0.1339
CO - 27% from wind - 5% from solar - $0.1361 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CO
AZ - 10% solar - $0.1268 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=AZ

WV- 80% from coal - $0.1334

Certainly if wind and solar was as expensive as you and RB claim then we should have seen the cost of electricity on ND, SD and IA and other states skyrocket from all the added generation in the last 10 years. And yet we haven't seen that. But I guess the real world is "shit for brains" in your mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top