Who will be first? Electric Trucks

On Motor Trend:

https://www.motortrend.com/news/official-rivian-building-lincoln-luxury-ev-suv-ford/

 

I read an article a few months back that China's mandatory electric vehicle program has increased pollution.

The materials needed for high tech batteries for EV's are mined by slaves.

You can't "save the planet" by producing extremely toxic batteries.

NASA completed a 3 year study of California's excessive smog problem. They found 4 natural gas leaks that had existed for years that was responsible for 48% of California's smog.

An electric truck will not work for everyone but a truck with an internal combustion engine will.

 

Okay, well let’s get started. I’ll directly plagiarize one of the other threads I’ve mentioned this in. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) explored the cradle-to-grave environmental impacts of ICEs and hybrids and full electrics in what was, I think, a two-year study. You can check out the details yourself, but the impact that comes from the batteries and sourcing other exotic raw materials is usually negated in half a year (hybrids) to a year (fully electric), at which point such vehicles are exponentially cleaner for the rest of their lives. The actual breakdowns of how clean a plug-in hybrid or full-electric vehicle are depend on what charges your traction battery (solar versus a coal-fired plants), and the UCS has a way for you to calculate that too.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave

 

Electric Hummer?

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/gm-hummer-electric-truck-gmc

 

Can you link to the NASA study on CA? I’m not finding the numbers you’re citing, but I may not know where to look. Also, what’s your source for the one on China bring dirtier due to the mandate? Is it due to China using mainly coal-fired plants, people not charging in the off-peak hours, or...?

You are right about the cobalt mining — it’s a mess and has tens of thousands of children “employed” in the Republic of Congo—this is something that should get get more media coverage (like the working conditions for the workers in Asia that make so many of our goods). These things are complex. It’s one reason I didn’t get solar panels on my house — none of the solar installers could give me a factory source for the panels, and all were from China, and I didn’t want to help pollute some river in China in order to make my house “greener.”

 

Scroll up... I posted a video on exactly this, on the same page as these posts. These statements are false.

 

I like the way you think.

I don't look for these types of articles because of the quantity of fake news and misinformation that'sout there, they just automatically show up when I log onto the internet on my cellphone because it goes straight to Google. I'm positive the article I read stated 48% with either 3 or 4 natural gas leaks being the culprit.

As typical for Google, I just typed in exact words that I'm positive were in the previously seen articles title and the exact article didn't show up. I did however see a lot of articles that directly conflicted each other, very typical for Google. A near exact title of the article I read was "NASA concludes 3 year study of California's pollution problem".

This is the closest one I could find for the NASA study but it definitely isn't the same article. The numbers aren't even close.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3A2V2hg14lQHv-ojwD0r3N

I did a search for the article about China's new pollution problem (electric vehicles) and not one similar article showed up on Google's search even though I read that article on Google, maybe 3 or 4 months ago. Typical Google. It's title was close to "Hong Kong has a new pollution problem - electric vehicles". Of course the title was very misleading as modern media can't do it any other way nowadays. You are correct, the pollution problem was using a lot more coal to charge those electric vehicles.

Too many sheep and not nearly enough honest leaders...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6G-3_Aasao

 

Excellent reference, thank you.

 

Im all for innovation but they wont be using my $ to learn with. The range, charge time and price (that one is on me) just dont work.

 

Oh no, allow me to stop you right there.

The article (which was dated 2015 mind you, meaning the study was started sometime between 2012 and 2013) NEVER says what the life expectancy of an EV or Hybrid actually is. They say that an EV produces half of gas emissions over it's lifetime than a ICE vehicle, but they never say what the lifetime is! Logically, if an EV vehicle is cleaner but only lasts half as long, they have to produce twice as many essentially doubling the environmental impact!

By the way, are there hundreds of thousands of EV vehicles rotting away in scrapyards right now? No there is not and there wasn't in 2015 either, so any estimation of the environmental impact of EV battery disposal and recycling is a guess, or a lie. Remember asbestos is a great way to keep warm and cigarettes are a great way to relax.





You might want to be more selective about your sources in a discussion. You posted a study written by an unabashed political organization. Upon visiting their website I was informed their mission is to combat climate change and given the opportunity to sign a petition denouncing the current administration. It is a lobbiest group against the oil companies, plain and simple. Of course they will say EVs are better in every way.

This will be my last post on this thread, as this is becoming a political discussion and not something I want to be involved in.

Farewell.

 

Yeah, that org. is not pleased about what the current administration is doing. But remember that its bias is environmentally focused. I don’t get why you are fussing that a well-known (50+ year-old) environmental non-profit advocacy group, one founded and run by scientists and researchers, sets out to figure out whether EVs and full electrics are better for the environment than ICEs and then distributes its findings. They aren’t working on behalf of big solar corporations or otherwise on the take, bro! They are simply looking to support environmentally superior options.

Cite a better source. I’ll check it out. I’m open minded and will change my mind if credible information is made available.

 

Wonder if you will need a box full of charging adaptors once ev becomes mainstream.

 

I read the document and it does define lifetime, of both ‘types’ of vehicles it compares and then continues w/ EVs. It starts with the note:

We assume that the midsize vehicles are driven 135,000 miles over their lifetimes and the full-size vehicles 179,000 miles.​

Also, I found the assumptions made were well explained and, more importantly, validated when possible. For example, I like how they took curb weight into their selection of vehicles.

Union of Concerned scientists conducts well respected research. Just b/c an scientist works for an environmental group doesn’t mean their analysis is biased. If that were the case, then all medical science would be biased. Industry often times funds science to use to their benefit. Take for instance the oil & gas industry, they funded studies then used the findings contrary to their motives to develop the scheme needed to mislead the public.

Edited; me talk pretty one day