EV charging stations powering up

EV drivers throughout North America will soon have greater access to charging stations thanks to a new plan announced by General Motors and six auto industry partners: BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, and Stellantis.


The joint venture will have both private and public funds for the development of the charging infrastructure throughout the USA. Expansion of access to EV charging infrastructure is a significant goal of the Biden administration, which aspires to have 500,000 chargers installed in the U.S. by 2030.

Yep. Our tax dollars at work. The estimated cost of the energy and climate provisions in the Biden Administration's deceptively-named "Inflation Reduction Act," was $391 billion. It will really be around $1.2 trillion, according to Goldman Sachs.

Goldman predicts the EV subsidies alone will cost $379 billion more than advertised.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflati...eport-5623cd29

EVs are not the answer for a number of reasons. Here's one.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/siddh...ng-labor-congo

Per Volvo's own numbers their Ev models come off the assembly line almost 70% ecologically dirtier than the eqivalent ICE powered vehicle.

EVs are not the answer for a number of reasons. Here's one.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/siddh...ng-labor-congo

Per Volvo's own numbers their Ev models come off the assembly line almost 70% ecologically dirtier than the eqivalent ICE powered vehicle. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Good link. That's an absolute environmental and humanitarian travesty. While hopefully most lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper mining isn't as hazardous to human life and well being as the artisanal mines in the Congo, the effect on the environment will be enormous. I question whether we'll actually be able to mine enough of these metals to get to "0" net carbon emissions, regardless of what measures are taken by governments.

If memory serves me correctly, Volvo's research that you previously highlighted showed that carbon emissions from the manufacture and operation of an electric vehicle were higher than a for comparable internal combustion vehicle for 7 years. If you have to replace the batteries, it's longer than 7 years.

... Too right, lads... Surely would seem that the EV
electric cars just might be WORSE for the environment
and what-not than the gas petrol ones.

But I'm not gonna piss on Vita for mentioning the
article... The EV charging areas ARE powering up.
Not sure that it's good news though.

#### Salty

EVs are not the answer. The convenience factor is a huge drawback. My Tesla costs more per mile than my crew cab truck on the highway.

EVs are not the answer for a number of reasons. Here's one.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/siddh...ng-labor-congo

Per Volvo's own numbers their Ev models come off the assembly line almost 70% ecologically dirtier than the eqivalent ICE powered vehicle. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

After reading this article I wouldn't drive an Electric Powered Vehicle.

I bought a new vehicle about 3 months ago. I got an email for a customer satisfaction survey. They had quite a few questions about what it would take to get a person to buy an EV. Asking questions about gas prices etc. This is all a marketing con job to make a few people money for buying off politicians to make rules favoring EV.

So we should just continue to burn fossil fuels ?

So we should just continue to burn fossil fuels ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

Possibly. Other tech needs to catch up and actually be better then petroleum.
It takes time.

Toyota claims to be making progress in manufacturing solid state batteries.
https://news.yahoo.com/toyota-planni...200000356.html

So we should just continue to burn fossil fuels ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

Yes. The economic costs of going to "0" net CO2 emissions in short order would be huge. And whatever we do in the USA won't make much difference anyway:

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...5&postcount=10

We should aggressively pursue geoengineering research, possibly carbon capture, and other solutions that won't break the bank.

The cost of power generation from wind and solar has come down a lot, and in many places they're competitive with coal and natural gas when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Trying to use renewables, except hydro, for base load power though is proving problematic. As are the EV's, as illustrated by Ducbutter in this thread and elsewhere.

So we should just continue to burn fossil fuels ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

Yeah, why not?

So we should just continue to burn fossil fuels ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

Yes, it has served us well and we have an abundance of it. We were headed back to the top then along came a senile old goat. Fossil fuels are the only tried and true source of energy. Perhaps one day in the distant future discover how to make an electric motor that will come closer to fossil fuels.

We don’t produce the material needed for these batteries, so we will be subservient to those countries that do. Car dealership around here used to have full lots of cars ? Wonder what happened.

Electric motors on 18 wheelers and heavy duty farm equipment would be a disaster for greater than so called man made climate change. It would almost shut down long haulers and the food supply in this country.

Electric motors on 18 wheelers and heavy duty farm equipment would be a disaster for greater than so called man made climate change. It would almost shut down long haulers and the food supply in this country. Originally Posted by oilfieldace

Not to mention planes, container and cargo ships, plastics, polyesters, steel, cement, etc. Then of course there was the Green New Deal's plan earlier on to eliminate farm animals which fart. Combine that with the farm equipment and 18 wheelers you mentioned and I wonder what we're going to eat. Each other? Well, that's one way to reduce carbon emissions.