Forbes article on EVs not being so “green”

Haha, Just to stay with your comment of not commenting. Just read the bit under the actual article about the author who "has worked in the oil and gas industry for 25 years" answers all your questions.

Just a rethoric question: is this article from 2020 or from 2005? [emoji1]
 
In the second part of the article he essentially calls EVs a long tail pipe scam. Geez where have I heard that before... lol

Anyways, it is blatantly untrue that coal is the primary generating source in the US. That ship sailed 5 years ago. Now it's natural gas. I think that coal will dip under nuclear under normal consumption conditions in the next few years (covid dip doesn't count because it isn't permanent).
 
Oh, I remember this article from the oil and gas industry. It's garbage.

Edit to add: Apologies for not providing a point-by-point rebuttal, but I've seen dozens of these articles in the dozen or so years I've been reading and writing about EVs. There is plenty of research and published studies into pretty much every aspect of building EVs and integrating them into our transportation system.

There are, of course, challenges, but EVs are still head and shoulders better than the alternative.
 
Last edited:
Esprit1st said:
Haha, Just to stay with your comment of not commenting. Just read the bit under the actual article about the author who "has worked in the oil and gas industry for 25 years" answers all your questions.
Just a rethoric question: is this article from 2020 or from 2005? [emoji1]
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's like saying if the source of a positive article about batteries is an EV enthusiast, it may also be suspect. Better to debate and explain specific facts if you disagree.

I, of course, am an EV enthusiast (with off-grid solar at our cabin, e-bikes and now own an EV), but doesn't mean I drink all the EV koolaid. The big question still is how/where are we going to source enough electricity to get rid of all our ICE cars (given only 1% of cars are EV today) and do it with near 100% renewables. And same goes for producing enough batteries to power them, incl those needed to store grid power when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. I have yet to see those answers explained adequately.

That's why I think it is not a good idea to put all our eggs in one basket (ie BEVs). If hydrogen can work for some applications, that could perhaps alleviate the BEV adoption issues, and maybe "flatten" the disruption curve towards full EV adoption.
 
I agree with you. It's not all roses and unicorns. There is definitely issues that need to be addressed.

First, and that's the problem with articles like above is they say renewables suck because they have emissions too, so we shouldn't go that direction.

My thoughts about that is that they are in the startup phase of becoming more prevalent. CO2 emitting energy (coal, gas, etc) have been used for 100+ years now. Of course they are established and are well understood.

Renewables are just starting. There needs to be a mix (wind, water, solar, etc) to overcome the problem of time of demand.

That's the biggest issue since that is even more unknown territory.

I believe there is options out there like ex. gravity storage, heat storage, compressed air, etc and of course batteries. Again, we need a mix.

But in the end electricity driven transportation makes the most sense since it can be used easier than fossil fuels.

I believe hydrogen might be a transition fuel on the way to electric in some niche cases. It just needs too much energy to be produced and needs to be transported just like fuel. It doesn't make sense other than maybe (!!) for long haul road transportation.

Just some of my thoughts ... [emoji6]
 
There are no remaining issues and there is no guess work left.

Total energy draw from ALL sources globally is a constant 15 terrawatts per hour or 1.9 kwh per person. We need about 12 hours global reserve capacity. All we have to do is make as many 4680 cells per year as we make aluminum cans. Cost would be about $765B per year. Double it and you cover all the needed solar and grid (most solar will be roof top so grid is nominal.) For about 18T $$ spread across 10-12 years you have a 100% green fusion(star) powered perfectly distributed and hardened decentralized energy production. Tesla with the mere 15 Tera factories it dropped it is building (if you were paying attention) will produce all the needed capacity itself. Anything else from anyone else is just useful cushion.

The advice Gali gave to useless rent seekers like Gates is well taken: The people who say it can't be done should get out of the way of the people who are doing it.
 
I stopped at. "... fossil fuels are “dirty” and renewables such as wind and solar energy and electric vehicles are “clean” ...".

I get across the intersection faster than the others and reach the speed limit ~200 yards (~183 m) ahead of the others giving lane choice. My wife and I talk using inside voices instead of shouting over the engine. Our dogs are hilarious when using 'summon' to bring the car. As far as I'm concerned, hands on time is 10x more impressive than this frequently lying article:
  • "Tesla ... government policies subsidize the purchase of EVs to replace the internal combustion engine of gasoline and diesel-driven cars and as owning a “clean” and “green” car becomes a moral testament to many a virtue-signaling customer." - well that isn't me. I'm a cheap frugal car buyer who only cares about the operational expense. Tesla gets no Federal Tax Credit yet still outsells the honorable competition. So it cost me $2.70/100 miles not counting the free charging I get where I shop. He is writing to someone else.
  • "... lithium-ion rechargeable battery which relies on critical mineral commodities such as cobalt, graphite, lithium, and manganese. ..." - he forgot to include the consumption of these by refineries and other industries. This omission is called 'cherry picking' instead of a more accurate report of which industries are using the existing sources. For example, cobalt is used in refineries.
  • "cobalt ... dangerous and employ child labour" - then let them keep and eat their cobalt. Then he admits, "Glencore assures buyers that no hand-dug cobalt is treated at its mechanized mines."
  • "Professor Kelly estimates that if we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles, the vast increases in the supply of the raw materials listed above would go far beyond known reserves." - Cool! Now I know where to put my 401k funds into beyond gold.
  • "... the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, ..." - I don't care because I have my EV car and he doesn't. But more on point, every ICE engine and transmission has ~2,000 parts of which ~500 are moving and trying to disassemble and wear down the moving parts. In contrast, my EV has one rotor, a reduction gear, differential, and drive wheels. This is 2-3 orders of magnitude fewer moving parts that are not trying to blow the whole assembly apart. Electric cars should have 2-3 times the lifetime of ordinary ICE vehicles. BTW, the Swedish report claiming excessive battery CO{2} production remains a fraud.
  • "... mostly from coal-fired power plants, ..." - good thing he doesn't know about the US Energy Information Administration. We call this 'cherry picking' yet my EV has no catalytic converter, muffler, or exhaust pipe.
So I'm fairly sanguine about this posting of lies and misrepresentations. I wish I wasn't but you take your opportunities where you can. Besides, if I'm at a bar and someone tries to repeat this nonsense, practice makes for a perfect response.

Bob Wilson
 
Last edited:
Tilak Doshi is definitely pro-fossil fuels. He also authored a story titled: " Asians Better Hope It’s A Trump Win In 2020", and one titled: "The IEA’s Sustainable Recovery Plan Is Unsustainable". He claims that: "Professor Kelly estimates that if we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles, the vast increases in the supply of the raw materials listed above would go far beyond known reserves." I did a quick Google search and found that there are many sources for lithium with millions of tons of conventional reserves. Lithium is also found as a dissolved salt in seawater. The total content of lithium in seawater is estimated as some 230 BILLION tons. As to cobalt, the amount used in batteries is small and new designs use even less.

There is no doubt that the mining for rare minerals needed to make EV batteries is not environmentally friendly, but the Forbes story is a serious exaggeration. In any case, once the minerals are mined, they are not thrown away. Old batteries can and are recycled for their mineral content. They certainly don't go up in smoke as does petroleum.

The replacement of ICE vehicles will continue at a steady rate. EVs will become "greener" as more old batteries are recycled and more electricity is generated by nuclear, wind, and solar.

Meanwhile, Ars Technica has a story concerning Consumer Reports finding that electric vehicles do save their owners money. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/1...eally-does-save-money-consumer-reports-finds/
 
A lot of good points have been made already, which I won't repeat. I'll just add that I am on Clean Power San Francisco's 100% Renewable plan. Literally no fossil fuels are involved when I charge at home, which is at least 85% of the time. And San Francisco is far from the only place with 100% clean power available. Fossil fuels are going away, and the sooner the better.
 
I did a search for this article and found it has been most quoted by organizations associated with the oil and natural gas industry. There have been videos and other articles with the same name, https://www.kochvsclean.com/debunking-fueling-u-s-forward-ev-attack-video-dirty-secrets/

There seems to be an pro oil/gas lobby called Fueling American Forward which is behind a lot of these articles.

I know one tendency when someone says something that you don't agree with is to attack the messenger. But when the messenger has clear and stated bias, the messengers credibility is a valid argument. Not that everything that he says is wrong. There is really nothing like a totally green car, even EVs need some amount of plastic and batteries etc. Some of the electricity consumed may need to come from oil and gas sources. But production of electricity in a power plan using oil gas is a lot more efficient than producing power in 10s of thousands of emission spewing ICEs.

And Forbes as a magazine is not known for its neutrality, they have a political philosophy of free markets and no regulations. This article is not a peer reviewed academic article, which looks at all the puts and takes. So take it it for it is worth, an article with some hard facts which not please EV proponents, but with a lot of conjuncture, wishful thinking and biases which only serve to push a particular agenda.

My 1 -c-
 
No! No power needs to come from fossil fuels. If any fossil fuel wealth remains its all needs to be spent on cleaning up the mess it made.
 
First of all, some of us are far less interested in being "green". ("Green" is a marketing term and doesn't really mean anything anyway.) My Niro EV saves me money. That's why I love it. Secondly, EVs are really the next step in automotive evolution. Fossil fuel - be they good or evil - are going to dry up eventually. Moving towards an alternative platform is just good business. Lastly... Some charging stations are just electric plugs connected to diesel generators; and even if they aren't, where do you thing that power comes from? Stop fooling yourselves.
 
DerekA said:
First of all, some of us are far less interested in being "green". ("Green" is a marketing term and doesn't really mean anything anyway.) My Niro EV saves me money. That's why I love it. Secondly, EVs are really the next step in automotive evolution. Fossil fuel - be they good or evil - are going to dry up eventually. Moving towards an alternative platform is just good business. Lastly... Some charging stations are just electric plugs connected to diesel generators; and even if they aren't, where do you thing that power comes from? Stop fooling yourselves.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Everybody chooses an EV for different reasons. Some just like that it has plenty of power, I like it because it has power and it's silent (my road trips have never been so relaxing), it's "green" and it saves me money in the long term.

Yes, green doesn't mean that the electricity that goes into my battery has no CO2 footprint. However it has a much smaller CO2 footprint than a gas car. AND that footprint gets smaller over time since the grid gets "greener" over time. And that's important for me, call it green or whatever you want. [emoji1][emoji106]

I don't fool myself. I'm just looking at facts.
 
DerekA said:
First of all, some of us are far less interested in being "green". ("Green" is a marketing term and doesn't really mean anything anyway.) My Niro EV saves me money. That's why I love it.
Click to expand...

Actually you are being green. You are interested in saving the greenbacks. :);):D

Sorry, I could not resist that
 
I have a PHEV with a smaller battery, running in full EV 90% of the time. My power is mostly from hydro, which is not the norm, but coal certainly is not the norm either in the U.S. now anyway.

This article feels like misinformation articles from 2015, honestly. And the writer has a clear bias from working in the oil/gas industries. You shouldn't even have to say things like, no one is indicating that we should switch the entire UK to full EVs immediately.

It is important to look at those ideas and potential downsides and review them, of course, but the assumptions and statements made in that article are generally just incorrect and not accurate in this world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top