Only 5% of next car purchasers expect to buy all electric cars-Road and Track.

[wilberforce15]

Electrical motors convert about 85% of the electrical energy into mechanical energy.

For gas, it's about 40% that is converted into mechanical energy.

Gas engines require so much extra motion and parts, the conversion rate is terribly inefficient. Electric motors have so much fewer parts and steps, the conversion is much more efficient.

That's why coal is dirtier than gas, but a coal-powered EV is cleaner than a gas car.

 

[Non liberal]

For a given level of energy output, yes, but the EV requires so much less energy output and is so much more efficient at converting it to motion, the coal EV is significantly cleaner. You get to learn some high school science in the next post.

How about the folks mining it. Did you account for them. I never liked science, its only as honest as the scientist. But good try.

 

[Non liberal]

Electrical motors convert about 85% of the electrical energy into mechanical energy.

For gas, it's about 40% that is converted into mechanical energy.

Gas engines require so much extra motion and parts, the conversion rate is terribly inefficient. Electric motors have so much fewer parts and steps, the conversion is much more efficient.

That's why coal is dirtier than gas, but a coal-powered EV is cleaner than a gas car.

It doesn’t matter which engine is more efficient. If the process of mining and burning coal is that much more dirty then the process of drilling and burning gas then it’s that much more dirty. Kind of simple really, no need to make this any more complicated then it is.

 

[wilberforce15]

How about the folks mining it. Did you account for them. I never liked science, its only as honest as the scientist. But good try.

I'd be quite happy to compare the supply chain that created the stuff.
Science is about comparing like with like, holding other variables constant.
Go ahead and include the supply chain impacts of gas and EV's. I don't care.

The cartoon is the question, and the cartoon is stupid because electric motors are 2x as efficient, so the burning of the coal isn't as bad as the burning of the gas. That's the question.

 

[wilberforce15]

It doesn’t matter which engine is more efficient. If the process of mining and burning coal is that much more dirty then the process of drilling and burning gas then it’s that much more dirty. Kind of simple really, no need to make this any more complicated then it is.

It matters because you have to create less than half the energy to run the coal car as opposed to the gas car.

The coal creation and burn can be twice as dirty, and it's still cleaner to run an EV.

 

[Non liberal]

It matters because you have to create less than half the energy to run the coal car as opposed to the gas car.

The coal creation and burn can be twice as dirty, and it's still cleaner to run an EV.

It is twice as dirty, but twice as dirty at producing methane which is 20 times more damaging to our climate then carbon dioxide, and hardly anybody even has an electric car yet.lol so not only are they like at least ten times worse for the climate, but they’re more expensive, don’t last as long, and aren’t anywhere near as reliable as a combustion vehicle. just your typical liberal idea

 

[wilberforce15]

It is twice as dirty, but twice as dirty at producing methane which is 20 times more damaging to our climate then carbon dioxide, and hardly anybody even has an electric car yet.lol so not only are they like at least ten times worse for the climate, but they’re more expensive, don’t last as long, and aren’t anywhere near as reliable as a combustion vehicle. just your typical liberal idea

The misinformation is astounding.
The reliability and length of service of an electric motor absolutely laughs at combustion. It's not even close, and you already know it. There is no maintenance schedule for the motor, because the motor lasts forever.

Being twice as dirty at methane, which is 20x more damaging to climate, supposedly, does not make it twice as dirty or 40 times as dirty, because that's not how math works. You cannot isolate a single compound, blow it up to being the only important one, and then compare.

 

[Non liberal]

The misinformation is astounding.
The reliability and length of service of an electric motor absolutely laughs at combustion. It's not even close, and you already know it. There is no maintenance schedule for the motor, because the motor lasts forever.

Being twice as dirty at methane, which is 20x more damaging to climate, supposedly, does not make it twice as dirty or 40 times as dirty, because that's not how math works. You cannot isolate a single compound, blow it up to being the only important one, and then compare.

Methane is 20x worse than carbon dioxide for global warming. That’s not me sir, that is your precious “science” that says that. Right? It produces twice as much and is about to add 10% more as soon as China gets their coal plants built AND hardly anybody even has an electric car to charge yet! Get serious dude! It’s common sense from the get go, it’s a real shame it’s even had to come this far for you to still not understand your failed thinking that you borrowed from the delusional liberals who made it up in the first place. I really expected much more from you.

 

[wilberforce15]

Methane is 20x worse than carbon dioxide for global warming. That’s not me sir, that is your precious “science” that says that. Right? It produces twice as much and is about to add 10% more as soon as China gets their coal plants built AND hardly anybody even has an electric car to charge yet! Get serious dude! It’s common sense from the get go, it’s a real shame it’s even had to come this far for you to still not understand your failed thinking that you borrowed from the delusional liberals who made it up in the first place. I really expected much more from you.

Yes, methane can be 20x worse on a marginal level (meaning, per unit difference in output). That doesn't make it 20x overall worse or anything of the kind. None of this is precious to me. I hate environmentalists.
But 20x worse on one aspect doesn't make it 20x worse overall. That's how statistical shell-games are done. You isolate a piece, use multipliers to express the difference, and then pretend like that's representative of overall effect. This is done in all kinds of areas. It's very familiar. And it dupes the dupes like you.

 

[burrheadd]

Damn these Ol boys will argue about anything

I’d still put my first wife up against either one of ‘em

 

[wilberforce15]

Damn these Ol boys will argue about anything

I’d still put my first wife up against either one of ‘em

That's a really weird flex.
People don't usually puff their chests out when they can't even keep a mannish woman.

 

[burrheadd]

That's a really weird flex.
People don't usually puff their chests out when they can't even keep a mannish woman.

Just spittin truths

 

[Non liberal]

Damn these Ol boys will argue about anything

I’d still put my first wife up against either one of ‘em

Sorry, I just don’t like peoples leftist ideas. It’s what is ruining the world, and needs to be exposed whenever possible.

 

[Non liberal]

Yes, methane can be 20x worse on a marginal level (meaning, per unit difference in output). That doesn't make it 20x overall worse or anything of the kind. None of this is precious to me. I hate environmentalists.
But 20x worse on one aspect doesn't make it 20x worse overall. That's how statistical shell-games are done. You isolate a piece, use multipliers to express the difference, and then pretend like that's representative of overall effect. This is done in all kinds of areas. It's very familiar. And it dupes the dupes like you.

That’s not me saying it bud. The EPA actually says it’s more then 25x worse for the environment, other sites say 30x. The study I showed was just done in July this year that’s why I posted that one, sorry I don’t know how to post the whole article on here. Coal already releases twice as much methane as gas. What do you think is going to happen when we have to mine more of it to keep up with all the evs being put on the road because Pete and Elon says to buy one? I am not misrepresenting any information, we are talking about global warming and methane is 30x better at warming the globe then carbon dioxide. If we replace carbon dioxide with methane, we will obviously accelerate “global warming” correct? Do you understand now?

 

[Non liberal]

I

Yes, methane can be 20x worse on a marginal level (meaning, per unit difference in output). That doesn't make it 20x overall worse or anything of the kind. None of this is precious to me. I hate environmentalists.
But 20x worse on one aspect doesn't make it 20x worse overall. That's how statistical shell-games are done. You isolate a piece, use multipliers to express the difference, and then pretend like that's representative of overall effect. This is done in all kinds of areas. It's very familiar. And it dupes the dupes like you.

get it, you’re not really into the environment, but you called it a “ superior” technology. It is not. Evs have been around for a long time. If they were superior, they would’ve overtaken the combustion engine by now. Common sense, it goes a long way.

 

[wilberforce15]

That’s not me saying it bud. The EPA actually says it’s more then 25x worse for the environment, other sites say 30x. The study I showed was just done in July this year that’s why I posted that one, sorry I don’t know how to post the whole article on here. Coal already releases twice as much methane as gas. What do you think is going to happen when we have to mine more of it to keep up with all the evs being put on the road because Pete and Elon says to buy one? I am not misrepresenting any information, we are talking about global warming and methane is 30x better at warming the globe then carbon dioxide. If we replace carbon dioxide with methane, we will obviously accelerate “global warming” correct? Do you understand now?

Oh, I agree about methane. But coal isn't methane. There is more to it.

Something can be 20x worse on one component of pollution, and better overall. Or 10% worse overall. Or 100x worse overall.

Looking at methane is meaningless by itself. That's how you become a sucker for a statistician pushing a narrative.

 

[wilberforce15]

I

get it, you’re not really into the environment, but you called it a “ superior” technology. It is not. Evs have been around for a long time. If they were superior, they would’ve overtaken the combustion engine by now. Common sense, it goes a long way.

It is a superior technology. That's what it is called when you get more horses, more torque, infinite longevity and no maintenance.
Electric has ALWAYS been superior and people have ALWAYS used and preferred electric whenever batteries allowed the work to be done.
Batteries were the hangup. And now that development is there.

 

[vantexan]

Was just watching a video about Ford's new lithium iron phosphate batteries. Superior to lithium ion batteries in every way except they're only half as energy dense. So takes more of them resulting in a heavier vehicle. They expect the technology to improve in the next two years. But the big impact is they don't have any nickel or cobalt which have become extremely expensive and there's limited supply. Iron and phosphate are two of the most common minerals on Earth. Tesla is even looking at them. Can make these batteries for a lot less so the potential is there for an affordable EV. Stuff like this has to happen and we'll need reliable electricity production like from nuclear if we're truly going to switch from fossil fuels.

 

[Non liberal]

It is a superior technology. That's what it is called when you get more horses, more torque, infinite longevity and no maintenance.
Electric has ALWAYS been superior and people have ALWAYS used and preferred electric whenever batteries allowed the work to be done.
Batteries were the hangup. And now that development is there.

Yup, and only 22,000.00 to replace the battery when it goes bad. That’s a bargain.

 

[Non liberal]

Was just watching a video about Ford's new lithium iron phosphate batteries. Superior to lithium ion batteries in every way except they're only half as energy dense. So takes more of them resulting in a heavier vehicle. They expect the technology to improve in the next two years. But the big impact is they don't have any nickel or cobalt which have become extremely expensive and there's limited supply. Iron and phosphate are two of the most common minerals on Earth. Tesla is even looking at them. Can make these batteries for a lot less so the potential is there for an affordable EV. Stuff like this has to happen and we'll need reliable electricity production like from nuclear if we're truly going to switch from fossil fuels.

We’re not switching anything from fossil fuels.