Replacing diesel trucks with electric semis led to charging time and load loss passed on to customers

[Paulll]

Somehow I think the WSJ is connected to the oil companies, it never publishes any articles against them. BTW, how about passing off the fuel cost savings to the customers? EV drivevtrains are about 4x more efficient, and have regenerative breaking as well. The refuel time us partly a red herring, unless you have two drivers they have mandated breaks. It will also be solved with liquid batteries, you can just refill with charged electrolyte.

[Gdop]

We need to mine more materials so everyone can have EVs.

[Not an EV guy but really]

those pounds are costing significantly less to deliver, meaning they're more profitable for the fleet

Article says literally the opposite.

Article is missing many facts...  What is the cost to maintain a diesel truck versus an EV? What is the cost to charge vs fuel? Why not outfit the roof of the trailer with solar for extended range? I will say pushing electric when infrastructure doesn't support though is dumb... Although who knows if that really is a problem or just more made up story

[Anti-propaganda man]

The technology already exists, the Tesla semi proves it. But again, PHEVs are an option in worst case.

As for Tesla semi, while the battery has some weight, be aware that EV trucks are allowed 2 tonnes extra. Also be aware that EVs are not ICE cars + batteries. Motors are lighter than engines, and less other parts as well

There is no ban on internal combustion engines, that is fake news. The ban is only on traditional ICE vehicles. PHEVs that have ICE engines are allowed

Across the world ICE vehicles are being deliberately phased out by policy. You're playing semantics to avoid that. If electric vehicles are so great, why are people being forced to buy them? Case closed. They are not great.

If they said that, they are wrong. The most common mistake is comparing primary energy which doesn't take into account fossil fuel inefficiency instead of useful energy which does work (calculating off gasoline/diesel and cross referencing average miles vs EV efficiency per mile). The end result would be around 1/4th more electricity needed to be added to the grid. Considering not all cars are going electric overnight, you easily have multiple decades

I can't make sense of what you've written. Where's your source that EVs would only require 1/4th more energy gen. on the grid?

As for why Britian's electricity prices doubled has nothing to do with renewable energy and everything to do with how expensive fossil fuels have gotten. One of the issues with them is they are highly volatile. And how Britain's electric market works is like this: You have multiple generators bid their prices until they fill demand. The cheapest ones provide the electricity, but the cost is based on the most expensive of the cheapest. What that means is, unless you are 100% renewables, the expensive fossil fuels set the price for everyone

.

The so called "renewables" (massive resource, land use and waste) are more expensive all over the world. Look at Germany. Again, if they're cheaper, why do no countries build them unless compelled to do so by so-called "environmental" policy. "When you build wind, you're really building gas" - Scottish Power exec. Having lots of wind power means you're reliant on immediately dispatchable natural gas as backup which is yes, volatile. Britain had a good coal and nuclear industry until the early 1990s. That's gone and prices have gone high. You're making stuff up as part of the EV cult. Stop doing that. Electric price in France (mostly Nuclear) are half that of UK.

No material is EV batteries is rare, most of it is fairly common. EVs have a lot of advantage, not just them being better for environment and people's health. They also have instant response time, less maintenance, torque, safer, convenience of charging at home, fuel agnostic, 1 peddle driving and etc

Complete lies. No, the materials are rare. Massively expensive and environmentally damaging mining for the batteries. Costs socialised beyond the owners with subsidies, electric grid expansion, public charging points. For the same price as an EV you can get a much better ICE car. Gasoline cars also put CO2 out the exhaust, which is making the world greener. Its an added benefit which is not advertised enough. EVs are obviously so great because there are mandates to get them sold because people won't buy them otherwise!

[A]

The technology already exists, the Tesla semi proves it. But again, PHEVs are an option in worst case.

As for Tesla semi, while the battery has some weight, be aware that EV trucks are allowed 2 tonnes extra. Also be aware that EVs are not ICE cars + batteries. Motors are lighter than engines, and less other parts as well

There is no ban on internal combustion engines, that is fake news. The ban is only on traditional ICE vehicles. PHEVs that have ICE engines are allowed

Across the world ICE vehicles are being deliberately phased out by policy. You're playing semantics to avoid that. If electric vehicles are so great, why are people being forced to buy them? Case closed. They are not great.

The phase out of ICE vehicles is centered around the harm they do, not just from climate change, but also local pollution and economic harm due to volatility of fossil fuels and medical costs. That said, the current phase out rules are not based around phasing out overnight. And no policy has completely phased out ICE. PHEVs which have ICE engines are still allowed under the rules. Now that may change come 2035-2045 and new rules be passed for 2050-2060 that phase out PHEVs. But that has not happened, and we are talking about the rules today

The rules have nothing to do with whether EVs are great or not. Actually, the best selling car in the world, gas or electric is an EV. That said, the governments want to accelerate transistion and transistion responsibly. And that means planning ahead


Personally, I think instead of such mandates, they should just require that ICE cars reroute their exhaust to their cabin. And if someone thinks ICE cars are so great, they can continue driving them with the exhaust going into their cabin instead of sharing it with others. I guarantee you then ICE cars sales will fall to virtually 0 in less than a year

If they said that, they are wrong. The most common mistake is comparing primary energy which doesn't take into account fossil fuel inefficiency instead of useful energy which does work (calculating off gasoline/diesel and cross referencing average miles vs EV efficiency per mile). The end result would be around 1/4th more electricity needed to be added to the grid. Considering not all cars are going electric overnight, you easily have multiple decades

I can't make sense of what you've written. Where's your source that EVs would only require 1/4th more energy gen. on the grid?

My source is math. UK has driven 323.8 billion miles were driven in 2022. A Tesla Model Y gets 28kwh/100 miles or 280wh per mile. That is 90.664twh


UK used 326.09twh in 2022, so 27.8% or about 1/4th

As for why Britian's electricity prices doubled has nothing to do with renewable energy and everything to do with how expensive fossil fuels have gotten. One of the issues with them is they are highly volatile. And how Britain's electric market works is like this: You have multiple generators bid their prices until they fill demand. The cheapest ones provide the electricity, but the cost is based on the most expensive of the cheapest. What that means is, unless you are 100% renewables, the expensive fossil fuels set the price for everyone

.

The so called "renewables" (massive resource, land use and waste) are more expensive all over the world. Look at Germany. Again, if they're cheaper, why do no countries build them unless compelled to do so by so-called "environmental" policy. "When you build wind, you're really building gas" - Scottish Power exec. Having lots of wind power means you're reliant on immediately dispatchable natural gas as backup which is yes, volatile. Britain had a good coal and nuclear industry until the early 1990s. That's gone and prices have gone high. You're making stuff up as part of the EV cult. Stop doing that. Electric price in France (mostly Nuclear) are half that of UK.

Look what at Germany? You seem to be confused about something. Germany's high electricity prices isn't due to renewables but due to high taxes on electricity which they use to fund all kinds of programs. Even then fossil fuels still set the price until you get over 100%

Overall if you follow fossil fuel prices, and electricity prices they align with each other because again the most expensive generator sets the price for everyone

Most new power going up is renewables

Just cause the fossil fuel industry convinced to politicians to keep gas around longer doesn't mean your statement has any merit. As proof, UK's peak gas for electricity was in 2008 when they used 176.22twh of gas(wind was 7.13twh). By 2022, that number dropped to 125.30twh (wind was 80.26twh). Weird way to build gas by decreasing it right?

It wasn't just gas prices that went up, coal prices went up too...

In 1991, UK paid same for electricity as 2021 factoring in inflation. If you consider higher taxes, UK actually paid less in 2021

No material is EV batteries is rare, most of it is fairly common. EVs have a lot of advantage, not just them being better for environment and people's health. They also have instant response time, less maintenance, torque, safer, convenience of charging at home, fuel agnostic, 1 peddle driving and etc

Complete lies. No, the materials are rare. Massively expensive and environmentally damaging mining for the batteries. Costs socialised beyond the owners with subsidies, electric grid expansion, public charging points. For the same price as an EV you can get a much better ICE car. Gasoline cars also put CO2 out the exhaust, which is making the world greener. Its an added benefit which is not advertised enough. EVs are obviously so great because there are mandates to get them sold because people won't buy them otherwise!

And which materials are those, do tell?

How is adding more CO2 a benefit that makes the world greener? Please don't tell me elementary school nonsense like "it is plant food", because that tells me you have never grew anything in your life. Just cause more CO2 means plants grow larger does not mean that is a good thing, as said plants lack nutrients in them. To put it into human terms, it is same as obesity. Plants gain more carbs, but are less nutritious. This means animals will have to either eat more putting on more carbs, or die from malnutrition. For humans, we just pay more and eat more nutritional supplements and more fertilizer

But you can show how thankful you are for the CO2 by going swimming in an Algal bloom, you think those are stuff we need to be thankful for right? /s

[David ontiveros]

All electric vehicles are junk.
All they do is cost taxpayers more and more money while demonrats pocket our money with their corruption

[Anti-propaganda man]

The phase out of ICE vehicles is centered around the harm they do, not just from climate change, but also local pollution and economic harm due to volatility of fossil fuels and medical costs. That said, the current phase out rules are not based around phasing out overnight. And no policy has completely phased out ICE. PHEVs which have ICE engines are still allowed under the rules. Now that may change come 2035-2045 and new rules be passed for 2050-2060 that phase out PHEVs. But that has not happened, and we are talking about the rules today

EVs have more pollution in manufacture. Calling them low-pollution is misleading. Britain had drastically increased air pollution after the government incentivised everyone to get diesel cars so as to reduce CO2 emissions. They went from 10% of cars on the road to 50% of cars. Now there is an air pollution crises which is solved by banning diesel cars made before 2015 from cities. Real smart! Government mandates almost always result in bad outcomes in undesired directions. If you care about air pollution new gasoline cars have very efficient exhaust scrubbing. EVs cause different air pollution from tyres and brakes because of their weight.

The rules have nothing to do with whether EVs are great or not. Actually, the best selling car in the world, gas or electric is an EV. That said, the governments want to accelerate transistion and transistion responsibly. And that means planning ahead

You said they were great. Governments wouldn't need to transition anything if they were. Governments themselves benefit from managing society. Burnham's "Managerial State". They have an in-built bias to seek to control society. Often that control is not needed and creates bad outcomes... which are solved by further goverment programs, etc.

Personally, I think instead of such mandates, they should just require that ICE cars reroute their exhaust to their cabin. And if someone thinks ICE cars are so great, they can continue driving them with the exhaust going into their cabin instead of sharing it with others. I guarantee you then ICE cars sales will fall to virtually 0 in less than a year

Wow what a brilliant argument. How about we force EV owners to ingest all the pollution that comes from manufacture. How about we take thousands of $$$ out of their pockets and give it to ICE car owners. Because ICE car owners are morally superior after all.

Do you own an EV? If not why not? You sound so intelligent, so you must be in a high-paying job where you can afford to burn money on vanity possessions.

Overall if you follow fossil fuel prices, and electricity prices they align with each other because again the most expensive generator sets the price for everyone

"Renewables" are manufactured using fossil fuels.

Just cause the fossil fuel industry convinced to politicians to keep gas around longer doesn't mean your statement has any merit. As proof, UK's peak gas for electricity was in 2008 when they used 176.22twh of gas(wind was 7.13twh). By 2022, that number dropped to 125.30twh (wind was 80.26twh). Weird way to build gas by decreasing it right?

It wasn't just gas prices that went up, coal prices went up too...

Britain went from coal in the early 1990s towards gas as a way to reduce its CO2 footprint. Nuclear is the best way to guard against price volatility. Again, France (70% nuclear gen) electricity price is half that of the UK. Energy underpins the economy. Case closed.

In 1991, UK paid same for electricity as 2021 factoring in inflation. If you consider higher taxes, UK actually paid less in 2021

Electricity prices doubled (pretty much exactly 100% increase) after the war in Ukraine and Russian sanctions. They were also kept artificially low before that due to a price cap. This increase is due to a reliance on gas, which is due to a reliance on highly unpredictable wind power, and CO2 reduction mandates.

And which materials are those, do tell?

https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary

"A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant."

How is adding more CO2 a benefit that makes the world greener? Please don't tell me elementary school nonsense like "it is plant food", because that tells me you have never grew anything in your life. Just cause more CO2 means plants grow larger does not mean that is a good thing, as said plants lack nutrients in them. To put it into human terms, it is same as obesity. Plants gain more carbs, but are less nutritious. This means animals will have to either eat more putting on more carbs, or die from malnutrition. For humans, we just pay more and eat more nutritional supplements and more fertilizer

Crop productivity increase from more growth because of CO2 is predicted to be up to 60% more per unit area by the end of this century - https://www.cato.org/blog/projecting-impacts-rising-co2-future-crop-yields-germany - on top of the already significant gains of the last century. This offsets any slight decrease in nutrients, which is barely measurable at possibly 5%, or maybe no effect at all as research is in its infancy.

Meanwhile, 37 authors from 18 countries find that 40% of global warming can be attributed to urbanisation around weather stations that were not designed for long-term measurement, and 60% to a measure of solar variability that the IPCC ignores - https://www.ceres-science.com/post/new-study-suggests-global-warming-could-be-mostly-an-urban-problem

"This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.". I cannot imagine the looks on people's faces if the hysteria of the past 35 years turns out to be an enormous waste of time and money.

[A]

The phase out of ICE vehicles is centered around the harm they do, not just from climate change, but also local pollution and economic harm due to volatility of fossil fuels and medical costs. That said, the current phase out rules are not based around phasing out overnight. And no policy has completely phased out ICE. PHEVs which have ICE engines are still allowed under the rules. Now that may change come 2035-2045 and new rules be passed for 2050-2060 that phase out PHEVs. But that has not happened, and we are talking about the rules today

EVs have more pollution in manufacture. Calling them low-pollution is misleading. Britain had drastically increased air pollution after the government incentivised everyone to get diesel cars so as to reduce CO2 emissions. They went from 10% of cars on the road to 50% of cars. Now there is an air pollution crises which is solved by banning diesel cars made before 2015 from cities. Real smart! Government mandates almost always result in bad outcomes in undesired directions. If you care about air pollution new gasoline cars have very efficient exhaust scrubbing. EVs cause different air pollution from tyres and brakes because of their weight.

The break even on manufacturing EVs vs ICE cars is only 1 year, and as the grid gets cleaner and EV manufacturing process and supply chain gets more optimized for EVs, the amount shrinks by the year

Not to mention manufacturing tends to be done away from the population, so less likely people to be exposed

As for diesel, let us stop pretending here. Diesel was lobbied in by automakers and fossil fuel industry to continue using oil. Otherwise, anyone with real common sense would have pushed hybrids. But that would have ticked off the oil industry, so they used diesel as a distraction

The rules have nothing to do with whether EVs are great or not. Actually, the best selling car in the world, gas or electric is an EV. That said, the governments want to accelerate transistion and transistion responsibly. And that means planning ahead

You said they were great. Governments wouldn't need to transition anything if they were. Governments themselves benefit from managing society. Burnham's "Managerial State". They have an in-built bias to seek to control society. Often that control is not needed and creates bad outcomes... which are solved by further goverment programs, etc.

Except you are ignoring that if you don't do transitioning properly, there are consequences. Even for gas cars, the government ripped out horse roads and put in car roads. And many places banned horse stables. If ICE cars were so great, why did they do that?

Personally, I think instead of such mandates, they should just require that ICE cars reroute their exhaust to their cabin. And if someone thinks ICE cars are so great, they can continue driving them with the exhaust going into their cabin instead of sharing it with others. I guarantee you then ICE cars sales will fall to virtually 0 in less than a year

Wow what a brilliant argument. How about we force EV owners to ingest all the pollution that comes from manufacture. How about we take thousands of $$$ out of their pockets and give it to ICE car owners. Because ICE car owners are morally superior after all.

Do you own an EV? If not why not? You sound so intelligent, so you must be in a high-paying job where you can afford to burn money on vanity possessions.

The pollution you speak of is away from population. How much EV manufacturing pollution were you exposed to? Right, 0. As for car exhaust pollution, we are all exposed to it.

It is quite interesting that if you were to release toxic gas on the street, most people would go to jail or at least face fines. Unless you are in a car, then it is somehow okay

And so you know, if you get exposed to harmful pollution from EV manufacturing (or any manufacturing), you should be compensated as well. It is only you who believes ICE drivers should be "privileged special snowflakes"

Overall if you follow fossil fuel prices, and electricity prices they align with each other because again the most expensive generator sets the price for everyone

"Renewables" are manufactured using fossil fuels.

Of course, first car factories were made using horses as well

Just cause the fossil fuel industry convinced to politicians to keep gas around longer doesn't mean your statement has any merit. As proof, UK's peak gas for electricity was in 2008 when they used 176.22twh of gas(wind was 7.13twh). By 2022, that number dropped to 125.30twh (wind was 80.26twh). Weird way to build gas by decreasing it right?

It wasn't just gas prices that went up, coal prices went up too...

Britain went from coal in the early 1990s towards gas as a way to reduce its CO2 footprint. Nuclear is the best way to guard against price volatility. Again, France (70% nuclear gen) electricity price is half that of the UK. Energy underpins the economy. Case closed.

Going from coal to gas is just more fossil fuel industry nonsense to keep fossil fuels around longer. Nuclear is fine and all, if we were in the 70-90s. But were are in the 2020s, and renewables are cheaper and better than nuclear. As for France, France just has a lower price cap, wholesale prices are higher in France than UK. But due to the cap, EDF is in the red. France is buying them out cause otherwise they would declare bankruptcy. Meanwhile UK's electricity providers are recording record profits

In 1991, UK paid same for electricity as 2021 factoring in inflation. If you consider higher taxes, UK actually paid less in 2021

Electricity prices doubled (pretty much exactly 100% increase) after the war in Ukraine and Russian sanctions. They were also kept artificially low before that due to a price cap. This increase is due to a reliance on gas, which is due to a reliance on highly unpredictable wind power, and CO2 reduction mandates.

Electricity prices did go up due to Ukraine, but not just for gas, coal too. This is why fossil fuels are susceptible to price volatility. And didn't I show you that gas usage went down with increase in wind power? You are so weird

And which materials are those, do tell?

"A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant."

None of those resources are rare or irreplaceable. Also I will point out that the report only looks at "select" resources, not "all" resources. For example, ICE cars require platinum which is way rarer than any of those resources. But since platinum is not one of the "select" resources, it isn't on the list

How is adding more CO2 a benefit that makes the world greener? Please don't tell me elementary school nonsense like "it is plant food", because that tells me you have never grew anything in your life. Just cause more CO2 means plants grow larger does not mean that is a good thing, as said plants lack nutrients in them. To put it into human terms, it is same as obesity. Plants gain more carbs, but are less nutritious. This means animals will have to either eat more putting on more carbs, or die from malnutrition. For humans, we just pay more and eat more nutritional supplements and more fertilizer

Crop productivity increase from more growth because of CO2 is predicted to be up to 60% more per unit area by the end of this century - on top of the already significant gains of the last century. This offsets any slight decrease in nutrients, which is barely measurable at possibly 5%, or maybe no effect at all as research is in its infancy.

Meanwhile, 37 authors from 18 countries find that 40% of global warming can be attributed to urbanisation around weather stations that were not designed for long-term measurement, and 60% to a measure of solar variability that the IPCC ignores -

"This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.".

Your own quote admits the loss of nutrients, and do note that loss is in CROPS where nutrients are offset with fertilizer which still suffered 5%. Now what do you think happens to plants that wild life eats that don't get fertilizer?

I cannot imagine the looks on people's faces if the hysteria of the past 35 years turns out to be an enormous waste of time and money.

By your hypothetical scenario, the worst results would be sustainability, clean air, clean water, and cheaper energy costs. The horror!

I bet you just the thought of not spreading toxins into your own family's lungs is eating away at your conscientious

[Anti-propaganda man]

The break even on manufacturing EVs vs ICE cars is only 1 year, and as the grid gets cleaner and EV manufacturing process and supply chain gets more optimized for EVs, the amount shrinks by the year

I'm not talking about CO2, I'm talking about pollution. CO2 is not pollution. It is a primary nutrient for all life on earth. If you care about CO2, the break even is much longer than 1 year. For a Tesla it's 8 years.

Not to mention manufacturing tends to be done away from the population, so less likely people to be exposed

But what about the environment? Isn't that a main reason why we are doing this? It is not "green".

As for diesel, let us stop pretending here. Diesel was lobbied in by automakers and fossil fuel industry to continue using oil. Otherwise, anyone with real common sense would have pushed hybrids. But that would have ticked off the oil industry, so they used diesel as a distraction

Absolute tin-foil hat conspiracy theory nonsense.

Except you are ignoring that if you don't do transitioning properly, there are consequences. Even for gas cars, the government ripped out horse roads and put in car roads. And many places banned horse stables. If ICE cars were so great, why did they do that?

There is no need whatsoever for a 'transition'. It's an artificially imposed requirement (a mandate). Your second argument is a fallacy. The transition from horses to cars wasn't mandated by the government on non-tangible artificial grounds like the invisible non-pollutant CO2. Horses and carts are still used across the world... they weren't banned.

The pollution you speak of is away from population. How much EV manufacturing pollution were you exposed to? Right, 0. As for car exhaust pollution, we are all exposed to it.

It is quite interesting that if you were to release toxic gas on the street, most people would go to jail or at least face fines. Unless you are in a car, then it is somehow okay

And so you know, if you get exposed to harmful pollution from EV manufacturing (or any manufacturing), you should be compensated as well. It is only you who believes ICE drivers should be "privileged special snowflakes"

Modern exhausts emissions are not harmful. The pollution is at such low concentration it is not a health risk. You know that. Stop lying.

Tyres and brakes now cause more pollution than exhausts. EVs are much heavier so will cause more air pollution due to more tyre and brakes wear. See source for data on tyre air pollution:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/23/health-impact-tyre-particles-increasing-concern-air-pollution

The report estimates 52% of all the small particle pollution from road transport came from tyre and brake wear in 2021, plus a further 24% from abrasion of roads and their paint markings. Just 15% of the emissions came from the exhausts of cars and a further 10% from the exhausts of vans and HGVs.

Exhaust emissions from UK vehicles have fallen by 90% since 1996, according to the government data, owing to stricter standards being enforced. As a result, the particles from tyres, brakes and roads have become the main cause of pollution from traffic, presenting a new frontier in efforts to reduce levels of dirty air.

Of course, first car factories were made using horses as well

Dumb. So-called renewables have to be made using fossil fuels. Mining and fabrication require those technologies.

Going from coal to gas is just more fossil fuel industry nonsense to keep fossil fuels around longer.

No. It was specifically for the purposes of reducing CO2 emissions. Now it's required as a backup for wind, as it can be turned on and off quickly unlike coal or nuclear. More conspiracy theory nonsense from you.

Nuclear is fine and all, if we were in the 70-90s. But were are in the 2020s, and renewables are cheaper and better than nuclear.

No they're not. They've been fraudulently mis-sold as such. They have externalised costs which are deliberately not factored in, like 100% backup generation infrastructure and massive transmission networks for wind. If they were cheaper the developing world would be installing them, but they're not.

Electricity prices did go up due to Ukraine, but not just for gas, coal too. This is why fossil fuels are susceptible to price volatility. And didn't I show you that gas usage went down with increase in wind power? You are so weird

Yes, coal prices went up, as there was a global energy shortfall (well, everything went up in price, because energy underpins the economy). However this could be offset by more coal production. Britain has enough coal reserves for 2000 years of electricity generation at current usage. Unfortunately we've blown up all our power stations because CO2.

Yes, gas usage went down, but RELIANCE on it went up, as it underpins wind. It's required for it (an insurance), and electricity prices doubled, and that's WITH a price cap. The actual price of electricity is much higher still, which is amazing.

None of those resources are rare or irreplaceable. Also I will point out that the report only looks at "select" resources, not "all" resources. For example, ICE cars require platinum which is way rarer than any of those resources. But since platinum is not one of the "select" resources, it isn't on the list

Maybe platinum is not on the list because only 3-7 grams are used per vehicle. It's not even known if there enough metals and minerals economically recoverable be able to make EVs for the whole world, let alone into the future (not sustainable).

Your own quote admits the loss of nutrients, and do note that loss is in CROPS where nutrients are offset with fertilizer which still suffered 5%. Now what do you think happens to plants that wild life eats that don't get fertilizer?

I have no idea. Why don't you tell us. I suspect it wouldn't be a problem since 99% of the history of life on Earth has had much higher CO2 levels than today. 500 million - 5 million years ago.

By your hypothetical scenario, the worst results would be sustainability, clean air, clean water, and cheaper energy costs. The horror!

I bet you just the thought of not spreading toxins into your own family's lungs is eating away at your conscientious

Not sustainable since massive amounts of resources and expense involved. The air is already clean. The cleanliness of the water in developing countries would probably be reduced by a massive global increase in mining. Not cheaper, that's a lie. And it may all be for nothing if it turns out CO2 is not driving global warming.

People like you are in an anti-scientific cult that worships the abstract concept of "green" but actually harms the world. Go to church. You have a religious mentality of sacrificing things to abstract non-existent gods so that you can personally feel better. Unfortunately this is hard-wired into many people. You need to recognise this. So I'm telling you. Maybe you'll learn.

There is nothing new under the sun. In the past people were sacrificed and witches were burned so that the weather would be good and the good harvests would return. That's happening again. It's a replacement religion. Or else its an outlet for the political left to, whether knowingly or not, control others and engineer society, AS IT EVER WAS and AS IT EVER WILL BE!

[Anti-propaganda man]

LOL...

Just looking at electric small cheaper cars for the average person. Because of its already high weight, a Peugeot 208 E (which costs the same as a gasoline Mercedes A-class) has a load capacity of 340kg. Four adult men weigh 360kg. The car cannot literally transport 4 men. It has 5 seats. My gasoline Fiat Punto is the same size and has a load capacity of 580kg. That's 5 adult men + 130kg of luggage.

ROFLCOPTER read the smallprint electric car buyers.

Also my car is 13 years old now. If it was electric would the battery still be ok? Probably not. I'd have to dump it and spend thousands on another second hand battery with 4 wheels attached. Perhaps apologists like you for insanely punishing mandates could buy the EVs for us? Cheers.

[A]

LOL...

Just looking at electric small cheaper cars for the average person. Because of its already high weight, a Peugeot 208 E (which costs the same as a gasoline Mercedes A-class) has a load capacity of 340kg. Four adult men weigh 360kg. The car cannot literally transport 4 men. It has 5 seats. My gasoline Fiat Punto is the same size and has a load capacity of 580kg. That's 5 adult men + 130kg of luggage.

ROFLCOPTER read the smallprint electric car buyers

I am not sure why you are changing the topic from semi trucks in California ports to sub compact cars in Europe.

That said, the Peugeot 208 E is a gasoline car converted to an EV, based on an ICE platform. Aka, not optimized for being an EV

On top of that, cars differ from car to car. For example, a BMW 5 series mid sized sedan weights 4,041 to 4,158. A Tesla Model 3 mid sized sedan weights 3,862 to 4,034 lbs

Also my car is 13 years old now. If it was electric would the battery still be ok? Probably not. I'd have to dump it and spend thousands on another second hand battery with 4 wheels attached.

Most EV batteries that have proper thermal management systems (not the Leaf) and over 200 miles range should easily last 15+ years

On top of that, battery prices are dropping rapidly by the year

Perhaps apologists like you for insanely punishing mandates could buy the EVs for us? Cheers.

I don't care about mandating EVs, all I care about is fresh air. If you are willing to have your exhaust go into your own cabin instead of my lungs and lungs of others, drive whatever you want

[Anti-propaganda man]

Thanks for admitting defeat. You could have saved us the trouble and not bothered posting anything at all. Goodbye little liar.

[A]

Thanks for admitting defeat. You could have saved us the trouble and not bothered posting anything at all. Goodbye little liar.

Defeat in what? Do you live in some alternate reality?

[Anti-propaganda man]

Why did you ignore the longer post I posted above that?

You keep lying and saying modern exhausts are harmful. They are not. There's more air pollution from tyres and brakes now. If trucks are converted to EV there will be 50-100% more trucks on the road causing much more air pollution and also in manufacturing.

I mention small EVs to actually give you a chance! Because they make more sense than a giant truck! But they're still completely uneconomical and irrational. Endless weasel excuses that EVs will make sense in the future. Well maybe. We can decide that when we get there. Right now EVs are a complete waste of time and money and very few people should buy them. There should be no mandates or planned transition whatsoever.

You still haven't explained why you're pushing this insanity. You don't own an EV. So we can only conclude that you get off on being a conformist, or on being morally superior. But of course you aren't, because all the supposed wonderful flowers and daisies of EVs are complete nonsense.

[A]

Why did you ignore the longer post I posted above that?

Why did you make 2 posts? I simply didn't see it as I saw your last post. Will address it below

You keep lying and saying modern exhausts are harmful. They are not. There's more air pollution from tyres and brakes now. If trucks are converted to EV there will be 50-100% more trucks on the road causing much more air pollution and also in manufacturing.

If it isn't so bad, then you have no problem venting it into your cabin, correct?

And no, there isn't more air pollution from tires and brakes. The reason is because of how tires and brake pollution works, most of it is at high speed. Aka, highways. And most of it doesn't travel far. So in terms of actual real life exposure, the exhaust emits more pollution

Also, EVs do 1 peddle driving, so you use the brakes much less often

There is no reason for there to be 50-100% more trucks on the road if converted to EVs

And increase in manufacturing is minimal, 1 year break even and shrinking as EVs supply chain is optimized and platforms are optimized for EVs and not ICE cars converted to EVs

I mention small EVs to actually give you a chance! Because they make more sense than a giant truck! But they're still completely uneconomical and irrational. Endless weasel excuses that EVs will make sense in the future. Well maybe. We can decide that when we get there. Right now EVs are a complete waste of time and money and very few people should buy them. There should be no mandates or planned transition whatsoever.

EVs make sense for both cars and trucks

[quote
You still haven't explained why you're pushing this insanity. You don't own an EV. So we can only conclude that you get off on being a conformist, or on being morally superior. But of course you aren't, because all the supposed wonderful flowers and daisies of EVs are complete nonsense.
[/quote]
I do own an EV, where do you get the idea that I don't? I clearly said what I care about is fresh air, if you reroute your car exhaust into your own ICE car, feel free to drive it all you want

The break even on manufacturing EVs vs ICE cars is only 1 year, and as the grid gets cleaner and EV manufacturing process and supply chain gets more optimized for EVs, the amount shrinks by the year

I'm not talking about CO2, I'm talking about pollution. CO2 is not pollution. It is a primary nutrient for all life on earth. If you care about CO2, the break even is much longer than 1 year. For a Tesla it's 8 years.

The CO2 break even on an EV like a Tesla is only 1 year vs an ICE car of the same class on the US grid. As for other kinds, even less

As for CO2, all things in moderation. Just like eating food, overeating isn't good for you

Not to mention manufacturing tends to be done away from the population, so less likely people to be exposed

But what about the environment? Isn't that a main reason why we are doing this? It is not "green".

It is beneficial for the environment as well. While there is not much difference in terms of manufacturing be it ICE or EV. For oil, you have to always keep getting more and more. Which means endless damage to the environment. Not to mention the air pollution. In comparison, EVs powered by renewables is sustainable and  recyclable, limiting the amount of extraction needed

As for diesel, let us stop pretending here. Diesel was lobbied in by automakers and fossil fuel industry to continue using oil. Otherwise, anyone with real common sense would have pushed hybrids. But that would have ticked off the oil industry, so they used diesel as a distraction

Absolute tin-foil hat conspiracy theory nonsense.

Please find me any real environmentalist who was pro-diesel. Diesel doesn't get us off fossil fuels any faster than gasoline does. Stop trying to shift blame

But for someone who keeps spewing nothing but tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, that is quite a funny statement

Except you are ignoring that if you don't do transitioning properly, there are consequences. Even for gas cars, the government ripped out horse roads and put in car roads. And many places banned horse stables. If ICE cars were so great, why did they do that?

There is no need whatsoever for a 'transition'. It's an artificially imposed requirement (a mandate). Your second argument is a fallacy. The transition from horses to cars wasn't mandated by the government on non-tangible artificial grounds like the invisible non-pollutant CO2. Horses and carts are still used across the world... they weren't banned.

Many roads ban horses on them, many local governments also banned stables. Not to mention, car roads have the issue of damaging horse shoes.

But what you are saying is that instead of banning ICE cars, local governments should ban gas stations and require mixture of gasoline that would destroy car engines in 2-3 years? Is that what you prefer so it would be like switch from horses?

The pollution you speak of is away from population. How much EV manufacturing pollution were you exposed to? Right, 0. As for car exhaust pollution, we are all exposed to it.

It is quite interesting that if you were to release toxic gas on the street, most people would go to jail or at least face fines. Unless you are in a car, then it is somehow okay

And so you know, if you get exposed to harmful pollution from EV manufacturing (or any manufacturing), you should be compensated as well. It is only you who believes ICE drivers should be "privileged special snowflakes"

Modern exhausts emissions are not harmful. The pollution is at such low concentration it is not a health risk. You know that. Stop lying.

Tyres and brakes now cause more pollution than exhausts. EVs are much heavier so will cause more air pollution due to more tyre and brakes wear. See source for data on tyre air pollution:

The report estimates 52% of all the small particle pollution from road transport came from tyre and brake wear in 2021, plus a further 24% from abrasion of roads and their paint markings. Just 15% of the emissions came from the exhausts of cars and a further 10% from the exhausts of vans and HGVs.

Exhaust emissions from UK vehicles have fallen by 90% since 1996, according to the government data, owing to stricter standards being enforced. As a result, the particles from tyres, brakes and roads have become the main cause of pollution from traffic, presenting a new frontier in efforts to reduce levels of dirty air.

The emissions from cars exhaust is toxic, and even worse, most of that emissions is airborne making it into people's lungs. This is even more so since ICE cars tend to be less efficient in urban driving.

Most tire emissions are at highways. And they don't travel far. Of course don't get me wrong, something should be done to address tires as well. I am not in disagreement there. But in terms of actual damage to people's health, exhaust posses a bigger threat.

But one doesn't stop the other

Of course, first car factories were made using horses as well

Dumb. So-called renewables have to be made using fossil fuels. Mining and fabrication require those technologies.

They don't "require it", they simply use what is available from current infrastructure. None is required and is being transitioned as well with time

Going from coal to gas is just more fossil fuel industry nonsense to keep fossil fuels around longer.

No. It was specifically for the purposes of reducing CO2 emissions. Now it's required as a backup for wind, as it can be turned on and off quickly unlike coal or nuclear. More conspiracy theory nonsense from you.

Nope, it simply because fossil gas was cheaper than coal. And it was used as a distraction to slow down renewables.

It isn't required for backing up wind at all. Wind can back itself up. But it keeps fossil fuels around longer

Nuclear is fine and all, if we were in the 70-90s. But were are in the 2020s, and renewables are cheaper and better than nuclear.

No they're not. They've been fraudulently mis-sold as such. They have externalised costs which are deliberately not factored in, like 100% backup generation infrastructure and massive transmission networks for wind. If they were cheaper the developing world would be installing them, but they're not.

Everything has externalized cost, all powerplants need backup.

As for transmission lines, did you know that US has more fossil gas pipelines than high voltage transmission lines? And this is despite fossil gas pipes being more expensive. Do you know why? Cause fossil gas only needs to go through FERC. While high voltage transmission lines have to go through dozens of agencies

Speaking of externalized costs, what about all our wars like spending trillions in Iraq for oil? We even help Saudi Arabia, despite them manipulating costs against us, and most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. What about that cost?

Electricity prices did go up due to Ukraine, but not just for gas, coal too. This is why fossil fuels are susceptible to price volatility. And didn't I show you that gas usage went down with increase in wind power? You are so weird

Yes, coal prices went up, as there was a global energy shortfall (well, everything went up in price, because energy underpins the economy). However this could be offset by more coal production. Britain has enough coal reserves for 2000 years of electricity generation at current usage. Unfortunately we've blown up all our power stations because CO2.

Yes, gas usage went down, but RELIANCE on it went up, as it underpins wind. It's required for it (an insurance), and electricity prices doubled, and that's WITH a price cap. The actual price of electricity is much higher still, which is amazing.

The Great Irish Potato famine didn't happen because the Irish did not have enough potatoes, Britain simply paid more for those potatoes and the Irish starved. As long as something is a global commodity, the price of it will be set by the global market. This is why here in US despite us producing huge amount of coal, gas and oil were still at the mercy of the high prices

Using less of it means reliance on it went down. It isn't like gas must be used instantly. And with time it will be 0 unless the fossil fuel industry stops the transistion

The price of gas and coal went up, you wouldn't escape global prices unless you transition away from them. The is the problem of being reliant on consumables

None of those resources are rare or irreplaceable. Also I will point out that the report only looks at "select" resources, not "all" resources. For example, ICE cars require platinum which is way rarer than any of those resources. But since platinum is not one of the "select" resources, it isn't on the list

Maybe platinum is not on the list because only 3-7 grams are used per vehicle. It's not even known if there enough metals and minerals economically recoverable be able to make EVs for the whole world, let alone into the future (not sustainable).

The list only looks at minerals used by EVs, and not by ICE cars. And only the ones that would need scaling. That is why platinum is not included, which despite needing just a few grams is also much rarer and needs far more mining due to the lower concentration. 42% of the world's platinum demand is automotive industry

Even common elements in both like Iron is also not on there.

It is like me asking you who the worst person in the universe is, but you are limited to only naming people in this thread and their name must start with "Anti". See anyone can pick and choose to create a narrative when you set restrictions of only counting certain things

There is most definitely more than enough minerals that are economically recoverable for the entire world to go EVs for a 1000 years even if you don't count recycling. Add recycling and its a moot point

Your own quote admits the loss of nutrients, and do note that loss is in CROPS where nutrients are offset with fertilizer which still suffered 5%. Now what do you think happens to plants that wild life eats that don't get fertilizer?

I have no idea. Why don't you tell us. I suspect it wouldn't be a problem since 99% of the history of life on Earth has had much higher CO2 levels than today. 500 million - 5 million years ago.

And that is why dinosaurs were so huge, the stocked up on carbs. Unfortunately, current wild life isn't made to sustain such large amounts of carbs.

By your hypothetical scenario, the worst results would be sustainability, clean air, clean water, and cheaper energy costs. The horror!

I bet you just the thought of not spreading toxins into your own family's lungs is eating away at your conscientious

Not sustainable since massive amounts of resources and expense involved. The air is already clean. The cleanliness of the water in developing countries would probably be reduced by a massive global increase in mining. Not cheaper, that's a lie. And it may all be for nothing if it turns out CO2 is not driving global warming.

People like you are in an anti-scientific cult that worships the abstract concept of "green" but actually harms the world. Go to church. You have a religious mentality of sacrificing things to abstract non-existent gods so that you can personally feel better. Unfortunately this is hard-wired into many people. You need to recognise this. So I'm telling you. Maybe you'll learn.

There is nothing new under the sun. In the past people were sacrificed and witches were burned so that the weather would be good and the good harvests would return. That's happening again. It's a replacement religion. Or else its an outlet for the political left to, whether knowingly or not, control others and engineer society, AS IT EVER WAS and AS IT EVER WILL BE!

The amount of resources transitioning to EVs and renewable energy and amount of extraction from the ground would actually be much much less as you aren't burning it. Mining would also go down with the transition

Look, I get it, you are part of the fossil fuel cult and believe fossil fuels are your god and can never be replaced by science and technology. But you can only be in denial of reality for so long.

But it is quite sad that in modern day we have cultists like you who sacrifice your own family at the altar of fossil fuels without batting an eye

Still, like the dawn of the human race, we move on.