More: EVs aren't green claims in Wired

Discussion in 'General' started by 101101, Jun 4, 2020.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    There is an article in Wired that on the surface is about recycling cyber trucks but is really about trying to say the F150 is greener than it is and that EVs are only marginally more green than ICE vehicles and not worth any price difference.

    It tries to say Green vehicles are only 25% greener because of the grid power mix. Can't be the case because EV power trains are generally 7x more efficient and even in the dirty electric grid NG offsets coal so that you get a mix not much worse than oil either way on average and greener in places like CA- so try again because it is going to be more like 1/7th or 14% the emissions not 75%. Look how clean the air got in the couple of months where people weren't commuting as much during the pandemic. These paid liars are trying to reverse this understanding with propaganda and shillery. There should be a consequence when they act to intentionally mislead the public about the public interest for profit- both criminal and civil- it is not a speech queller it is a anti censorship provision getting rid of the paid lie industry.

    Next lie in the article, worse than the first is that manufacturing the vehicle is 30% of the carbon load and the cybertruck because of the battery produces 3x more carbon pollution than manufacturing a F150. By these numbers the Cybertruck is implied to have close to 150% of the carbon foot print of he F150. But are batteries actually carbon intensive compared making engines and transmissions? Where are the smoke stacks on the Giga factory? And what of mining lithium- just use electric mining and hauling equipment- it is safe and cheaper and been around for a long time and source green energy which can be drawn from the grid easily with long distance contracts over super conducting wire and local storage if need be or put up cells and batteries on site. Lithium isn't that energy intensive if from brine where most of it comes from (you don't even mine it you pump it and evaporate it) and otherwise from say clay, green energy can still be used. The F150 is going to burn 1-3 swimming pools of gas 6-20x its weight in gas into the neighborhoods it runs around in. It is also going to literally burn -gasify into the atmosphere a lot more cobalt than will ever be in a Cybertruck battery (if there is any.)

    If you trace the money on this article you'll almost certainly find its a fossil fuel ad, that it is essentially false advertising really Wired should lose its press credential and its charter over profiting from lie campaigns. Members of the press are not respected by the public, the public looks at them generally with rare exception as prostitutes, sell outs, paid liars, and part of the paid lie industry. They see their job as misleading the public about the public interest and they are quite self-righteous about it as it if is a right. They are getting pissed because social media (privacy invading and broken as it is) has horizontal communication which is undermining their paid lying with more truth so they are screaming to be able to sue what should be dumb pipe platform holders to limit the free speech of the public (for whom free speech exists to serve) because they only want their credentialed paid lying to be allowed.
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. cmwade77

    cmwade77 Active Member

    They forget one important detail, a gas powered vehicle gets about 2 to 3 miles per kWH of electricity used to produce and deliver the fuel used, this doesn't even factor in the cost of gas while many EVs get 5+ miles per kWH of electricity. This automatically makes them more efficient, don't forget that many EV drivers charge only at stations that are solar powered, we get even cleaner and of course they don't use fuel or oil. But of course those of us that are here already know most of this.
     

Share This Page