If you think about it, a tanker truck is a “zero emissions” vehicle – in that the gas it carries isn’t “emitting” anything, as it is being transported from the refinery to the station.
Why are electric cars considered “zero emissions” when it amounts to the same thing?
True, while they are moving they are not “emitting.” But how about what makes it possible for them to move? Lots of C02 is being “emitted” by the coal/oil/natural gas-fired ultility plants that generate the majority (by far) of the electricity that electric vehicles “burn,” so to speak.
Does it matter – assuming C02 “emissions” matter – where they are “emitted”? Logically, of course, it does not.
But politically – that’s another matter.
Electric cars are given a pass with regard to their “emissions” because they serve the political purpose of (step one) cattle-prodding non-electric cars off the market in order to (step two) leave people with no alternative to electric cars, which alternative will then be denied them by discovering the “emissions” that are currently being ignored. The end-game being to restrict personal vehicle ownership to the relative handful who may still be able to afford it. The majority of these will be members of the government-corporate (this works just as well, reversed) ruling class, which is arranging things such that – per the WEF – we will own nothing (and be miserable) while they will own everything we used to (and be very happy).
If you doubt this is how the ball’s rolling – and that it was set in motion to achieve precisely these ends – ask yourself why there is no ululation of outrage over energy hog electric cars – which is all of the ones we’re allowed to buy (assuming we can afford to). Teslas are the most egregious but the others are of a piece. They tout how quickly they can accelerate. This requires energy. No different, fundamentally, from the energy necessary to push a 4,000-plus pound Dodge Charger Hellcat from stationary to 60 MPH in 3-something seconds.
The Hellcat “emits” at the tailpipe. The Tesla “emits” at the smokestack, where the excess electricity it burns up is generated, creating excess carbon dioxide “emissions.” Italics to make the point – as in more than necessary. No one needs to get to 60 in three seconds or even five – unless you’re racing. And racing is superfluous, wasteful – to use the stylings of the people attempting to cattle-prod non-electric cars off the market . . . in favor of electric cars that are similarly so. 
How dare they tout such affronts as “ludicrous speed” when the “climate” is “changing”! If it really is – in the sense that we’re all in danger on account of it – then what, pray, is being accomplished by eliminating the “emissions” of “climate changing” carbon dioxide from millions of tailpipes and concentrating them at centralized hubs (the utility plants) instead?
Why no federal-level (or California) equivalent of the the “fuel efficiency” and “emissions” regulations being used to gradually winnow and ultimately (they hope) eliminate non-electric cars applied to electric cars? Teslas are energy hogs as much as Hellcats are gas hogs and the existence – well, the use – of both results in the “emissions” of the same gasses, just at different source points. 
And almost all of the other extant and pending electric cars emulate Teslas. For example, the soon-to-be here (2023) Lexus RZ450e, a compact-sized crossover that touts “quick acceleration” in the first line of PR copy about its wonderfulness. Zero to 60 in 5.2 seconds!
No comment about what it takes to get you there. It’s the same, everywhere. And at the very same time, the electric cars that aren’t energy hogs aren’t allowed. You can buy a $6,000 EV in China that is not only affordable, it is efficient. It does not tout how quickly it get to 60 – because it doesn’t. But it also doesn’t need 1,000 pounds of battery pack sucking up hundreds of volts of electricity generated by utilities burning coal, oil and natural gas all night (and day) to keep up with the demand for more power. 
These Chinese electric cars “emit” a fraction of the “climate-changing” carbon dioxide generated in order to keep a Tesla’s 1,000-plus pounds of battery pack topped off. If you really, truly fretted the “climate changing,” that’s the kind of car you ought to be driving.
And many people probably would drive them – if they were allowed to. Without being forced to, it needs adding.
Such electric cars make a lot of sense for people who don’t need to drive very far – and don’t care about driving very quickly. They do get there, though. And – key point – they make it possible for more people to get there, without taking the bus or riding a train.
On their own time – and however they like.
That’s not what’s wanted here. And that may help you understand why the “emissions” of the electric vehicles we are allowed to buy – assuming we can afford to – aren’t considered an issue.
Yet.
. . .
Got a question about cars, bikes or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at [email protected] if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
travelling 100 miles in an EV uses 1.03 gallons equivalent of fuel = 34.7 kwh of electricity
(under not ideal conditions this can easily double).
under ideal conditions but at top speed this Mercedes EV used 90 kwh of electricity in 100 miles which = 3 gallons of gas
Under not ideal conditions the EV efficiency drops a lot, might use twice as much energy to go 100 miles. Using the electric heater and the rear defroster and wipers in an EV reduces range. In very cold conditions the battery range can drop 50%. If the range drops 50% it costs twice as much to go 100 miles
travelling 100 miles in a 50 mpg diesel powered car uses 2 gallons of fuel
Thermal efficiency of power plants using coal, petroleum, natural gas or nuclear fuel and converting it to electricity are around 33% efficiency, natural gas is around 40%. Then there is average 6% loss in transmission, then there is a 5% loss in the charger, another 5% loss in the inverter, the electric motor is 90% efficient so another 10% loss before turning the electricity into mechanical power at the wheels.
33% – 6% – 5% – 5% – 10% = 25% efficiency for EV’s.
(under not ideal conditions it might be 12% efficient).
An Ev is 25% efficient in turning original source of energy, petroleum in this example into mechanical energy to push the car down the road.
So to end up with 34.7 kwh of electricity which is equivalent to 1.02 gallons of gas to push the EV 100 miles down the road 4.08 gallons of fuel were burnt to generate the electricity in the power station, remember net 25% efficiency.
The mercedes EV used 90 kwh of electricity to go 100 miles = 3 gallons of gas, but to get that 90 kwh of energy 12 gallons of petroleum were burnt at the power plant.
90 kwh@ $0.16 per kwh = $14.40 12 gallons of fuel were burnt at the power plant for $14.40 = $1.20 per gallon
travelling 100 miles in a 50 mpg diesel uses 2 gallons of fuel @ $4.00 per gallon = $8.00
So it cost $14.40 for the Mercedes EV to go 100 miles. It cost the diesel car owner $8.00 to go 100 miles.
The Mercedes paid $1.20 per gallon for fuel. The diesel owner paid $4.00 per gallon. One reason is the diesel owner is paying up to 50% tax in the fuel cost, partly to pay for the roads, the EV owner paid no tax in the fuel and uses the roads for free. The tax payers are subsidizing the cost of the electricity the EV owner is using. The EV owner is a freeloader.
Ice car owners should ask EV owners for money to use their roads they paid for.
Green pumpers say burning 4 gallons or 12 gallons of fuel to go 100 miles is cleaner, safer, less wasteful then burning 2 gallons of fuel…..hahaha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BSdq-MpPdg&t=113s
new ice investment…….
The new Stellantis flagship the Maserati MC20
Maserati is using the MC20 as an opportunity to launch an all-new 3 litre twin-turbocharged V-6 engine that pumps out 621 hp. Called Nettuno, the new engine utilizes a unique twin-combustion system borrowed from Formula 1 race cars.
Most manufacturers aren’t investing in new ice technology, Stellantis is an exception.
19:45 in video new ice engine investment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbzI_yY24gM
China benefits the most from the EV push…….
There is a theory that there is three different groups with competing interests in the great reset, new world order agenda. They are the west, Russia and China.
China has infiltrated governments (who is running the G7 governments?)
China behind the promotion of this war?
If U.S. and Russia take each other out, china is the big winner, they will own the whole planet and they say they can survive a nuclear war (very large population) did china set this war up? remember china influences msm, elections and has infiltrated governments.
After the great reset there is supposed to be one central UN government and everything is owned by the central government. After china has colonized every country (agenda 2030 says there will be 500 million chinese left after the cull, no one else)
If china can get the U.S. into this war they might be able to set them up for a defeat in a nuclear war. If U.S. and Russia exterminate each other, china is the big winner, they get rid of a competitor, the U.S. and they can loot the $72 trillion worth of resources in Russia, they will own the whole planet. They can recolonize the G7 and every where else, they have the population to do it.
China has already taken over canada, they bought all the mines and real estate, infiltrated the government at all levels, they have a communist/fabian ccp controlled leader running the country. In the U.S. brandon is a ccp puppet.
china benefits more from cv19 then any then any other country
China behind the bioweapon injection
zhang yongzhen was the chinese scientist that released the genome data for the so called sa…rs co…v 2 vir….us, this data was used all over the world to put in place masking, lockdowns, destruction of small business and now forced extermination injections and to make, concoct, manufacture the vac……ci,,nes (extermination injections).
This faked data was fed into another software program that produced the mrna vac..ci,,ne in one weekend. ATTENTION: Made in one weekend, zero tests for safety (but the government said 24/7 safe and effective), Normal vac…..cines take 10 years to develop, test, produce.
ATTENTION: The problem was he used fabricated manipulated data, scientific fraud to fabricate the sars co…v 2 vir…us genome, he used their megahit software program. no controlled experiments were ever done.
Around the world virologists used 49 different software programs and could never duplicate his results. nobody seems to care………..
All the ingredients for these shots are made in china (horrible quality), production was ramped up to produce one billion shots in a few months, there was no quality control, no safety procedures, the garbage produced was contaminated, corrupted a complete abortion but people get injected with this crap.
the germ was the marketing campaign to suck you into the bioweapon shot
china supplies all the materials used to make drugs and vaccines for all the world so china will make huge profits from the cv19 hoax.
armies of Chinese bot accounts on Twitter were instrumental in promoting early lockdowns in countries like Italy while bombarding political figures who refused to order strict lockdowns, such as South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, with criticism and abuse.
Governments pushing EV’s:
Who benefits the most from the EV vehicle conversion? china does.
All the most important components in the new EV’s are all made in china. Then you are dependent on china for replacement parts, etc..
Looking at the lifetime comparison between the BMW and the Tesla I wonder if the chart allows for the shorter usable lifespan of battery’s in harsher environments versus gas or diesel engines? But the way things are going affordable vehicles are going the way of the Agatha Christine novel; “And Then Their Was None”. But as we all know freedom of movement is not what our masters want for us, shocking but true if you consider how they’ll be happy to legislate your F-150 out of existence but happily disregard the oligarchs private jets and yachts. The bureaurats will say to just take the bus, Oh wait you need your “shots” and internal passport to ride the bus. It looks like it’s going to be the shanks mare for us refuseniks…
“The end-game being to restrict personal vehicle ownership to the relative handful who may still be able to afford it.” – YES
Russia become communist through revolution & coup
The US is becoming communist through regulation
The real goal of communism is not to provide equity, it is to accumulate wealth and privilege in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. This can only be maintained by controlling the masses.
Tesla announced its quarterly results today.
Total deliveries reached 310,000 in 1Q22 … up from about 180,000 four quarters ago. Chart:
https://tinyurl.com/yv8kj748
Tesla also claimed an automotive gross margin of 32.9%.
Peak Tesla? Haven’t seen it yet except in the stock price, whose record high of $1229.91 was set on Nov 4, 2021. Currently it’s at $1,019.00 in after hours trading.
And Elon has set his peripatetic sights on Twitter, a totally different industry.
Something’s wrong with this picture …
Always thought that the “ludicrous speed” advertising is pure BS. Aside from the extra drain on the battery if you actually did use some ludicrous speed on the road and got nabbed by an AGW you’d be facing some ludicrous fine. Besides, where can you find an open road to try out that speed, except perhaps around 3AM.
Nah, it’s not Ludicrous “speed”, it’s Ludicrous “Mode”. It’s insane acceleration, particularly from 0. 0-60 is in about 2 seconds. That’s downright violent and batshit insane…. and fun.
Your username implies you’re in Boston, you must be familar with the “Boston Left”. It’s like the car is designed to win that game. You can use ludicrous mode whenever you’re in the front at any stop light.
The argument on their side, is that the pollution produced at the generating plant is more controllable. Something called a scrubber removes most of the emissions at coal and or natural gas generating plants. There is also zero emission electric generation at hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants. The latter does create thermal pollution. Minor players are wind and solar generating facilities. This is their argument. It may be full of holes.
And yet el jeffe declared a ‘war on coal’. Orange man promised a massive uptick in coal production but that never panned out.
Well if it’s anything like the war on terror, war on poverty, war on drugs, etc. that will be great news for the coal industry.
Hydro power is green?
However, building a dam in a river is similar to building a roadblock in the middle of the highway; it disrupts the flow of traffic in both directions. This “roadblock” can disrupt species populations, water quality, the river food web, and the surrounding environment. Declining fish populations can result in major complications for communities that are dependent on fishing for food and income.
The reservoirs can also cause floods which can force communities to relocate. Although hydropower is labeled as “renewable,” specific forms of hydropower and its effect on the ecosystem must be explored before we continue to develop more dams.
River systems around the world are fragmented by dams which can affect fish assemblages throughout the river. Impoundment facilities contribute to the biodiversity crisis by disrupting the river ecosystem. The physical impacts of changes in freshwater ecosystems include riverine fragmentation, sediment retention, enhanced evaporation, and increased greenhouse‐gas production [4]. These impacts must be addressed when designing and developing dams.
In addition, impoundment dams facilitate the introduction of aquatic invaders into freshwater ecosystems. Invading species are 2.4 to 300 times more likely to occur in impoundments than in natural lakes [4]. After combining information on the boating activity, water body physiochemistry, and geographical distribution of 1080 sampled water bodies (combination of natural lakes and impoundments), Figure 3(a) depicts that the invasion likelihood of impoundments exceeded that of natural lakes.
The most common non‐indigenous species include zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, and rusty crayfish. According to Figure 3(b), impounds are also more likely to support multiple invaders. These findings suggest that reservoir construction and conversion of lotic to lentic water stream conditions may have promoted the spread of invasive species across the landscape.
the trend in more developed regions like the United States and Western Europe, where new science is driving efforts to dismantle existing dams. (Dams for hydroelectric plants) Aging reservoirs have become inefficient, local ecosystem and habitat impacts can be profound, and accumulating research suggests that hydropower reservoirs may be a much larger contributor of methane — a greenhouse gas roughly 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide — than previously realized.
In a recent study published in the journal BioScience, researchers found that reservoirs may produce as much as a billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents — the majority of emissions coming in the form of methane — each year, more than the total emissions from the country of Canada.
“It’s not just about snails and fish,” Rozman says of the projects. “It’s about people, because we depend on the rivers.” Organic materials build up behind dams, consuming oxygen as they decompose. This sedimentation can create oxygen-free dead zones, where no river life of any kind can survive. As water stops flowing, its temperature rises. Even a few degrees can be life-threatening, since most aquatic life is highly temperature-sensitive. Sedimentation also gradually lowers the storage capability of the reservoir, reducing the amount of electricity generated.
The area downstream of a dam is obviously impacted by reduced water flow — the Colorado River, for example, no longer reliably reaches the ocean — but also by the lack of stones, logs, and sediment. “Downstream of a dam, the river is starved of its structural materials and cannot provide habitat,” according to the Hydropower Reform Coalition, a collection of 150 environmental groups. “Most dams don’t simply draw a line in the water; they eliminate habitat in their reservoirs and in the river below.”
Downstream Impacts
Depending on the design of the dam, water released downstream often comes from the deeper parts of the reservoir. That water is therefore much the same cold temperature throughout the year. This has negative impacts on aquatic life adapted to wide seasonal variations in water temperature. Similarly, dams trap nutrients coming from decomposing vegetation or nearby agricultural fields, reducing nutrient loads downstream and affecting both river and riparian ecosystems. Low oxygen levels in the released water can kill aquatic life downstream, but the problem can be mitigated by mixing air into the water at the outlet.4
Mercury Pollution
Mercury is deposited on vegetation downwind from coal-burning power plants. When new reservoirs are created, the mercury found in the now submerged vegetation is released and converted by bacteria into methyl-mercury.5 This methyl-mercury becomes increasingly concentrated as it moves up the food chain (a process called biomagnification). Consumers of predatory fish, including humans, are then exposed to dangerous concentrations of the toxic compound. Downstream from massive Muskrat Falls dam in Labrador, for example, mercury levels are forcing indigenous Inuit communities to abandon traditional practices.
Evaporation
Reservoirs increase a river’s surface area, thus increasing the amount of water lost to evaporation. In hot, sunny regions, the losses are staggering: more water is lost from reservoir evaporation than is used for domestic consumption. When water evaporates, dissolved salts are left behind, increasing salinity levels downstream and harming aquatic life.
Hydro power stations are expensive:
Capital costs
For power generation capacity capital costs are often expressed as overnight cost per watt. Estimated costs are in dollars:
Conventional hydropower $2752
Combustion turbine (petroleum) $710
Estimate in dollar cost $/MWh energy production at power plant in 2015. exclusive of tax credits, subsidies, or other incentives
coal 95.1 natural gas 72.6 nuclear 95.2 offshore wind 196.9 solar 239.7
(if a natural gas power plant is converted to solar source power plant source of power the price of electricity triples)
Capital costs
For power generation capacity capital costs are often expressed as overnight cost per watt. Estimated costs are in dollars:
Gas/oil combined cycle power plant $1000
Combustion turbine $710
Onshore wind $1600
Offshore wind $6500
Solar PV (fixed) 1800
Solar PV (tracking) 2000
Battery storage power $1380
Conventional hydropower $2752
Geothermal $2800
Coal (with SO2 and NOx controls) $3500–3800
Advanced nuclear $6000
Fuel cells $7200
Worldwide 80% of electricity is produced by oil, gas and coal. electric cars aren’t zero emission they are remote emission. In China most teslas are coal powered. In the U.S. 40% are coal powered.
The new gas powered cars run so clean they have very very low emissions, very close to zero like .00001% contaminants. The exhaust coming out of a modern diesel is cleaner then the air in a big city.
The emissions at the power plant are far higher then what comes out of the exhaust pipe of a modern ice vehicle. ICE engines will be banned because they are not zero emission, .00001% contaminants is too high, this is leftist insanity.
Not to mention transmission loss. Electrical grids are one of, if not the least efficient means of transporting power, just the most convenient.
Unless you are waiting in line to charge your Tesla.
‘You can buy a $6,000 EV in China.’ — eric
Which reveals two things. One is that, at least in regard to vehicles, China is freer than the US. That little $6K econobox probably doesn’t score highly on crash safety. But for someone who must drive to work in the rain, it’s both more comfortable and safer than a scooter.
Second thing is the familiar tendency of superpowers to price themselves into economic senescence. Cartels and corruption drive up prices. Americans pay twice as much per capita for health care as anyone else on the planet. Make them pay twice as much for vehicles, then more economic surplus is sacrificed to the Big Auto/Big Gov cartel, with no gain in living standard.
This is how dying empires go broke: gradually, then suddenly.
Any news from the war front, comrade?
In China the income tax rate is 15%, they also built a lot of low income housing to keep rents down, in the west they build $1 million condos, in big cities a bachelor apartment is $1500 a month. electricity cost to fuel your tiny electric car in china 8 cents per kwh, in the U.S. 16 cents per kwh. During the germ myth china was more open, free, had less mandates, didn’t destroy their small businesses, like the G7 countries did. in 1 year the G7 will have the same social credit score bs. You can buy a new car in china for $2500
Will there be a G7 in a year?
For 2 years the G7 had less freedom then N. Korea.
N. Korea didn’t have:
lockdowns, forced isolation, masking, forced bioweapon injections (their injection rate was around zero, their mrna bioweapon injection use was zero), social distancing, 24/7 germ propaganda.
The G7 got to enjoy, they say, up to 90% injection rate of the extermination/bioweapon injection, many other countries, like in Africa had injection rates of around 1%.