Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now if we are using incorrect EV efficiencies then the MPGe is probably wrong .
But the odd thing is that if the government reduces MPGe without reducing the overall proposed CAFE requirement, then a de-facto ban of internal-combustion-engine vehicles is constructed .
The odd thing is that the electricity powergrid is not carbon-free or carbon-neutral either one. And because of the proposed future increase in demand for electricity, the electricity powergrids will never become carbon-neutral.
At this link, electric-vehicles don't very much reduce carbon-release because they have attributable carbon-release based on the electricity generating plant that they charge from.
At this link, electric-vehicles don't very much reduce carbon-release because they have attributable carbon-release based on the electricity generating plant that they charge from.
There's simply no way people will self-regulate. They'll charge whenever they feel like it and there is no way to limit charging hours to particular times of day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moguldreamer
EPA explicitly does not count carbon from electricity production, or from manufacturing of an EV or its battery production in EV fuel mileage rules. "EPA proposes to include only emissions measured directly from the vehicle in the vehicle."
Very disingenuous.
But, of course! The whole thing is politically motivated. No one cares about science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
One can make a good argument that any environmental problem (real or fantasized) solved by EVs brings on even bigger environmental problems of their own.
True. It will be decades before they develop any EV that is truly of any value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
From my reading between the lines, a lot of this "green EV push" is using political power to shift from one energy company set to another energy company set. Tesla is an energy company just like Shell and GM are, just selling it in a different form.
That's absolutely right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCresident2014
As an American citizen, I LOVE the push from foreign energy to domestic energy. Nuclear, natural gas, and even coal are all produced here. True, we produce oil as well, but if we're not burning it we can export it.
Low-information voters always get suckered with the "energy independence" (snicker) nonsense.
You don't use oils for electrical production nor could you use oils. Having said that, you do have two electrical power plants that use slag (the leftover residue in the cracking stills) to generate power.
You (and to a lesser extent Central and South America) have the Mad Dog 20/20 of oils while the rest of the world has the champagne of oils.
Iran can refine oils into bunker oil and burn it to produce electricity because they have low-Sulfur oils.
The cost for you to remove the Sulfur from your high-Sulfur oils is cost-prohibitive for gasoline and electrical power production.
You will forever be dependent on foreign oils because light oils produce more gasoline per barrel than your intermediate and heavy oils. But even if you become less dependent on ICEs, you still need the foreign light oils for your life-style.
There's simply no way people will self-regulate. They'll charge whenever they feel like it and there is no way to limit charging hours to particular times of day.
The EPA doesn't attribute relevant share of electricity generating powerplant carbon-release to electric-vehicles that charge from it. And then the political party that advocates for electric-vehicles claims enormous reductions in carbon-release that don't truly exist.
At this link, on Figure 18, the relevant share of electricity generating powerplant carbon-release is attributed to electric-vehicles:
Kucharski said the driving range of electric trucks is nowhere close to gas and diesel powered vehicles and is simply "not practical" right now.
"The charge of an electric truck is about 10 hours and the distance could be about 150 miles to 300 miles," Kucharski said. "To give you an idea right now, one of our diesel trucks, when it fills out 300 gallons, it has a capacity to go 1,600 to 1,800 miles."
"So these 300 miles, let's say you and I jump in a truck tomorrow, we have to go to Los Angeles from Chicago, we're barely out of the state of Illinois, let alone able get food to the West Coast or come back," he added. "It's just going to take the transit time and increase it. With new technology, the distance should be as much as we have now, if not even further."
Because lithium batteries used to power trucks weigh around 8,000 pounds, truckers will have to forego four tons of goods on every electric vehicle. (Graham Hughes/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
In addition, he explained that the lithium batteries weigh around 8,000 pounds, which means there will be 8,000 pounds less in payload on each electric truck to make room for the 4-ton battery.
"We will have to take less payload because of these new lithium batteries that weigh about 8,000 pounds, so that is about 300 gallons of diesel [or] about 2,100 pounds of fuel and every gallon we burn we're lighter about around 7 pounds, but with these lithium batteries, fully charged or not, we're still at 8,000 pounds," he explained.
no question our food prices will go through the roof if the new EPA rules are implemented. I wish the disconnected politicians would remove their heads from the sand and hear people real concerns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.