• May 4th 2010 at 1:26PM
  • 70
We've heard many reports before regarding just how much impact electric vehicles (EVs) will have on the environment. Some claim a profound reduction of this while others suggest an increase of that. Of course, it's all speculation for now because it's hard to determine the EVs' actual impact until they take to the streets and long-term studies can be conducted.
Nonetheless, a German environmental organization called Deutsche Umwelthilfe claims that governments across the globe are wasting money by pouring it into EV initiatives. The group even suggests that some governments will "plunder" financially by dishing out all of this money which will have little, if any, impact on the environment. Head of the group Juergen Resch said:
A lot of money is going to be handed out to support electric cars instead of implementing tougher carbon-dioxide emissions [rules] and making gasoline and diesel cars more efficient.
Resch said automakers should instead focus on increasing efficiency of combustion engines rather than electric cars. Resch suggests that EVs pollute the environment a lot more than expected due to the extensive use of coal to generate electricity. Whether you believe Resch or not, we know EVs have environmental benefits regardless of where the electricity comes. Throw in the fact that power can be generated by cleaner technologies like wind or hydro-power, and we wonder if Umwelthilfe isn't hurting itself with this suggestion.

[Source: Bloomberg | Image: Eutrophication & Hypoxia - C.C. License 2.0]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 70 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      They are right in that the best way to address the problem would be to tax carbon energy more. However, that is political suicide in the USA, so it is a non-starter.

      And we all know that even coal-fired EVs are more efficient & less polluting than current gas powered cars. Why not switch to EVs AND try to make the grid cleaner.

      BTW, do this doofuses know that Germany has a huge solar and wind deployment?

      And combustion cars ARE going up in efficiency due to new government regulations like CAFE.

      BTW, I wonder which oil & car companies are funding this group. ;-)

      Also, there are other very important reasons to switch to EVs besides just pollution.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I think the basis of their complaint is the government money that is going towards subsidizing wealthy people's second cars.

      When EVs are truly competitive with current ICEs, the manufactureres won't have to hide the extra costs with taxpayer money.

      Most poor families struggle to afford a single vehicle - so Evs are out of the question for their budgets for at least a decade. The group seems to prefer more efficient versions of the ICEs that are already affordable, coupled with a greater investment in public transportation.

      They're not complaining about EVs, as much as they are complaining about wasteful subsidies for EVs (very similar to how BEV advocates complain about FCV funding).
        • 8 Months Ago
        The problem is that not everyone can afford a new car. Most of the car business is used cars. You have to start somewhere. And by the way, people with money buy cars. People without money drive older cars and buy them as they can afford them. If the concern is funding rich people for second cars, then we might as well forget funding at all as the very people that can afford to buy cars won't do it. We will wind up never having EV's on the road.
        • 8 Months Ago
        -I'm not bashing EVs. I just would prefer that the money be spent of researching the underlying tech

        Or, according to you, just give em all away to poor people. Nobody buys your shtick. Now you're starting to come off as bi-polar...

        • 8 Months Ago
        Considering most people travel within a 40-60mile radius of their home 95% of the time, wouldn't the ICE be "the second car".

        Your argument also doesn't make sense as even "affordable" hybrids are out of the price range of a "poor" (your words) family. Incentives drive both sales and production, and those two combined will act to lower the cost of EVs only a couple years down the line, making them affordable (especially considering the fuel and maintenance costs saved) for lower income households.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Letstalkawalk said, "For now, at least, EVs are second (or third, in the case of EVsuperhero) cars for the affluent who have extra money to blow on the latest gadgets."

        Well thank you for the compliment, I have never been known as affluent by anyone except the people in cyber world. I am just a car guy. The Yaris EV is my 4th car and if I was realy affluent I would have a four car garage instead of a 3 car garage. My house is little to look at but paid for, I don't even pay a 100 dollar cable bill like everyone else, just 12.50 dollars for the basics, I hate paying for commercials. I make sacrifices so I can own more cars. I am seriously considering getting rid of my gassers because I do not enjoy them as much as I use to. All my miles go on the EV. I had to have a EV. Once I realized the organized open plan by the oil corps and auto corps to keep me form going down the road burning electrons I said, "no you will not control me like you do everyone else." Though it took a large part of my disposable income, I had to have a EV. I don't like authority and I don't like being dictated to by the truly affluent people that keep our country addicted for profits, while knowing their actions are wrong for the country as a whole.

        Letalkawalk, I belive you are talking about the rich guy who purchases a EV on a lark and drives it a few weeks and goes back to his Escalade or Mercedes E class when it gets old.
        The difference between them and I is... I continue to drive my EV as my sole vehicle. In less than a year that is was physically in my possession I have put 12,000 miles on it. You see I do truly hate the drag your feet auto corps and greedy oil corps so I drive my EV. Are my other cars more luxurious in every way? Yes. My gas cars support the status quo which I am no longer forced to be a part of thanks to LI-ion Motors, the people who built my car. I have no desire to get in my gas cars and go anywhere. As more EV's become available I will buy them and replace my ICE cars. Could I ride a bike instead, yes, but I am a car guy and I would rather ride a dirt bike. I have two of those one modified for the woods riding and one for the track.

        I am or was eligible for a 1,500 dollar state tax credit here in Oregon. Not a great amount against spending over 42k. I am using it for business and so will write off miles. There was and are no other tax credits for conversions. I did not buy my EV for for a tax write off.

        My EV is not a toy. It was a way to vote with my wallet. I support small American corps for parts and labor, Korea for batteries, and Americans who built my EV. I support the use of domestic fuel and higher efficiency, rather than support the antiquated greedy, do wrong for profit, revenue oriented ICE and it's entrenched foriegn fuel supply.

        The poor never received computers first, the poor never received flat screens first, the poor never recieved saftey innovations for ICE fist. Thanks to the early adopters (who paid through the nose) these items eventually trickle down to them.

        • 8 Months Ago
        Actually, I think you made it pretty obvious that the same arguments against funding FCVs apply to funding BEVs.

        I'm not bashing EVs. I just would prefer that the money be spent of researching the underlying tech, rather than subsidizing their sale. It's a really very simple position.

        Keep in mind, I have investments in EV companies, as well as companies that make batteries, control systems charging systems, solar, wind, of course H2...

        When Chu said, "...if it were up to me, I would put every cent into electric cars.” I listened. Not every penny, mind you, I still have my personal hobbies, but I am a believer in EVs. However, at this point, I don't need to buy one - but I'd rather they get cheaper sooner and I think funding research is a quicker way to get there.

        You guys go right ahead and sink $25,000 plus into your Nissan Leaf - since you believe that's the way to get the ball rolling. I'd rather put my $25,000 into Nissan stock, to help finance the cars that come after the Leaf... (or A123, Enerdel, Asola, Panasonic, ... etc.)
        • 8 Months Ago
        I totally agree with you, i think an electric car is still a middle to upper class secondary car with little benefits for the environment, since the power source is still rather dirty in most places.

        If it's not counterbalanced with investments in renewable energy, it's kind of a silly idea.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Polo: well, the fact is that electric cars right now simply do not offer the same kind of functionality, and cost 2x what a normal car would.

        $25K might be 2x what a Versa costs, but for many new car buyers its definitely an option. Just because the very first EVs out don't cost what an affordable Kia might doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported.

        -Small compact cars with a 100 mile range do not meet everyone's needs by any stretch.

        There are very few cars designed to meet "everyone's" needs. Some people have big families, some have none, some need to haul a lot, some want power and speed. There's not going to be a shortage of other car makes out so, if it doesn't fit your200mile a day commute or budget either wait till one with better range comes out or wait till you can buy one used.

        -Lower maintenance costs do not help you much when you cannot afford the monthly payment at all :p

        Most people that can't afford new cars buy used or entry level cars. If you want that kind of price and range then you'll have to wait a few years. As batteries get cheaper and automakers expand production they'll hit lower price points. Stop being so glum.
        • 8 Months Ago
        -Many people would consider an EV the "second car", because they already own an ICE and that would make the EV a secondary - read *discretionary* - expense.

        Most new car buyers already own cars. They usually trade them in, sell them, or keep them as the "second car", so nothing new here.

        --I agree that it would save them money on fueling, but they would still have to swing a rather hefty monthly payment - which their paid-off decade-old ICE doesn't have - as well as hefty insurance premiums - the reason they old an older car is so they don't have to have full-coverage.

        Anybody that would struggle with a new car payment probably wouldn't buy a new car. Anyone that could, would consider it. Someone who drives an old car because they can't afford the insurance premium for a new car....probably won't buy a new car. Are you just trolling now?

        -For now, at least, EVs are second (or third, in the case of EVsuperhero) cars for the affluent who have extra money to blow on the latest gadgets.

        ....so you're just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks? and you're using class arguments to bash EVs...even though hydrogen cars (the ones that millionaires pay $600/month to showboat around in) are deeply subsidized by taxpayer money?

        The Leaf, and Imev, the Ford Focus EVs,etc are priced within the range of middle class families. The leases for your hydroscam cars that will never go into production, aren't.


        --Many people think that those tax credits would be better spent on public works projects, not just filling up another slot in an enthusiast's garage so they can feel smug about doing more for the environment than those poor people who can't afford new cars.

        Apply this to hydrogen tech and all those lease-only hydroscam cars.

        * Just a thought. Maybe, instead of giving away $7500 a pop to the rich, why just give the EVs themselves directly to those who could use them the most - meaning the poor who are struggling to pay for gasoline for their decade old guzzlers?

        Why doesn't Honda do the same with the Clarify FC? The $600 lease doesn't even begin to cover the $2million dollar price tag, so why don't they just offer $1 leases to needy families?

        You're trolling is getting tired.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Many people would consider an EV the "second car", because they already own an ICE and that would make the EV a secondary - read *discretionary* - expense.

        I agree that it would save them money on fueling, but they would still have to swing a rather hefty monthly payment - which their paid-off decade-old ICE doesn't have - as well as hefty insurance premiums - the reason they old an older car is so they don't have to have full-coverage.

        For now, at least, EVs are second (or third, in the case of EVsuperhero) cars for the affluent who have extra money to blow on the latest gadgets.

        Many people think that those tax credits would be better spent on public works projects, not just filling up another slot in an enthusiast's garage so they can feel smug about doing more for the environment than those poor people who can't afford new cars.

        * Just a thought. Maybe, instead of giving away $7500 a pop to the rich, why just give the EVs themselves directly to those who could use them the most - meaning the poor who are struggling to pay for gasoline for their decade old guzzlers? Sure, we could only sell one-fifth the total number of EVs (in the case of the Leaf), but wouldn't there be a greater benefit in getting rid of those old clunkers? It's not like the poor need to travel more than 40-60 miles a day.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Polo: well, the fact is that electric cars right now simply do not offer the same kind of functionality, and cost 2x what a normal car would. Small compact cars with a 100 mile range do not meet everyone's needs by any stretch.

        Lower maintenance costs do not help you much when you cannot afford the monthly payment at all :p

        Let's hope that the subsidies bring down the cost of the cars though.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Where would the internet be if the government didn't support it until it was cheap enough that poor people could afford it?

        We would probably have only 2% of the country with internet access.
        • 8 Months Ago
        "I just would prefer that the money be spent of researching the underlying tech, rather than subsidizing their sale. It's a really very simple position."

        And it's mistaken. Plug-in vehicles are ready for production with current technology, no amazing breakthroughs from the lab are required. Moving current technology to volume production will lower costs FAR MORE and FASTER than additional breakthroughs.

        People get frustrated with all the reports on the web of battery (and capacitors, and solar PV) breakthroughs that will take years or may never reach production. They're definitely worth funding ( http://www.nrel.gov/ has a great summary of the 2009 USA programs, I've lost the link). But those breakthroughs are far more likely to reach production if there are many production facilities already making a million automotive batteries and competing for the next million orders. Governments can advance their industry fastest to that state using vehicle subsidies, distasteful as that may be to some voters.

        Have some humility. Chu is smarter than you are ;-)
      • 8 Months Ago
      As Spec said, environmental issues aren't even all the reason to switch to alternatives. The Oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico alone will cause many lives to be disrupted for decades to come. Let's take into account the Gulf wars. Live lost beyond belief. I cannot believe the statement by Deutsche Umwelthilfe. It smells of Oil Lobbyists. If gasoline goes up any further it will put a wrench in our economic recovery. We have to implement alternatives to save our future. Coal, as dirty as it may be is still a favorable alternative to oil until we find better alternatives still. By the way, most energy companies DO NOT use coal alone. It's not even fair to compare 100% coal use.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Just ignore talkawalk. He ran out of arguments to use against EVs so now he's going to keep whining about why they don't give them away for free.

        • 8 Months Ago
        Well said!

        I find it funny to think of coal as the lesser evil, but you're probably right.
        • 8 Months Ago
        LOL @ Larzen.

        It's funny, isn't it? I do fine, so when I'm willing to give up tax incentives to help out people who aren't doing so fine, you think I'm suffering from "class envy"? I don't need a government hand-out, but some people really do.

        I'd rather the poor guy down the street, who NEEDS a car to get to work yet can only afford an old beat up SUV, well I'd rather him get the benefit of a brand new EV. It would help him more than it would help me... after all, I can afford my house in the city, a choice I made so I can walk or bike to work. He however, lives on public assistance in the projects, but has to drive outside of the city to his job just to put food on his table for his family. Pity he has to spend so much of his income on gasoline.

        I guess looking out for the less-fortunate is "class-envy" in your book, huh Larzen?
        • 8 Months Ago
        Put it this way. I'm not the one complaining that the government *won't* pay me to buy something I can already afford, and something that I would buy anyway because I care about the environment.

        • 8 Months Ago
        If I'm trolling, polo, then you sure are an idiot for responding...
        • 8 Months Ago
        letstakeawalk, stop trolling the thread. you jumped from being against any subsidies for buyers to saying the government should give them away for free. Your class-warfare argument sounds even more idiotic than your usual nonsense.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Polo, you're an idiot.

        I'm not arguing against EVs, I never have. My comment was more a thoughtful reflection on how the money could be better applied, in a fashion that not only helps the environment and a large multi-national corporation, but that also helps out someone who really needs the help.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Don't worry, guys. Shortage of cheap oil will drive this market.
        By the way, coal is only going to pollute where it's being converted
        to energy. Us folks on the far side of the grid breathe clean air, so
        at least, the coal pollution is confined to a certain locale, not all
        over the place because of the ubiquity of smoke belching automobiles.

        @letstakeawalk: You sure suffer from class envy, don't you? Most
        of your comments mention something negative about the people
        that have more money than you. I know many successful people,
        and the ones I know worked damned hard to get where they are.
        If you feel deprived, get off the computer, get back to school and
        learn something that will help you do well. If you *are* doing well,
        why are you whining so much? There's no excuse for that in America.
        Even now, there is plenty of opportunity. The hard working people
        I know owe you absolutely nothing.
      • 8 Months Ago
      There are only two possible explanations for such an odd statement from a supposedly "green" group:

      1) It may be an "astroturf" organization, fronting for not-at-all green groups.
      or
      2) It may be a "neo-luddite" group that basically wants us all to retreat to a pastoral pre-technical rural society.

      Considering their promotion of IC engines, I'd say the first explanation is far more likely.
      • 8 Months Ago
      This group may be very correct especially when the Environmental groups realize that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale. Thus CO2 does not cause global anything. The mounting evidence that there has been fraud by the AGW groups and the MANNipulation of temperature data to make it look like there is a PROBLEM WHEN THERE IS NONE. BELOW ARE SOME REFERENCES THAT SHOULD BE REVIEWED . List of references:
      The paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
      Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
      B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
      Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
      Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

      Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
      that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
      R.W.Wood
      from the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, if you're interested.
      The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
      By Alan Siddons
      from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST

      The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted - they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.

      Web- site references:
      www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
      wwwclimatedepot.com
      icecap.us
      www.stratus-sphere.com
      SPPI
      many others are available.
        • 8 Months Ago
        I've found that Global Warming Deniers tend to be one of 3 types:

        1) Claim there is no global warming, often pointing to winter blizzards. (but conveniently ignoring record warm temperatures afflicting the 2010 Winter Olympic games, so they had to truck in snow...)

        2) Admit there is some global warming, but insist that greenhouse gasses have nothing to do with it (ignoring both chemistry and physics).

        3) Admitting there is global warming and that greenhouse gasses play a role, but insist that it is really a good thing - more CO2 for plants! (ignoring rising ocean levels and weather disruptions causing droughts in some places and flooding in others)

        The one thing they all have in common is a resistance to change, a desire to continue our fossil fuel guzzling ways indefinitely. Strange that they call themselves "Conservative" when they are opposed to actually conserving.
      • 5 Years Ago
      This kind of illustrates why we fight about alternatives. Everyone is competing for government money.

      I think the point that EVs are not the most cost effective way to reduce emissions is quite true (at this point, I think this will change very rapidly, probably even quicker than I expect, esp given the Leaf is supposedly profitable today). However, I think this is true of any alternative (this includes biofuels, hybrids, etc) besides from conservation. Although, I think they have to be very careful about calculating this, since AFAIK both gasoline and diesel (esp diesel in Europe) gets huge subsidies from the government, though these are better hidden from the public. There's also the bias from calculating upfront costs rather than lifetime cost (which better factors in lower energy costs).

      They also forgot local emissions and also forgot to include emissions impact from refining and delivering gasoline/diesel. They also forgot that BEVs are one of the few types of vehicles that have the potential for true zero emissions (which is really the main reason why governments are supporting them). Also the emissions impact really varies depending on electricity mix; France, with most power from nuclear plants, stands to benefit hugely from BEVs, which is why they are pushing them so strongly.

      Also they use the "instead" terminology, but I think we can do both (tougher rules) at the same time as BEVs. Here in the US, the issue is it is politically impossible to pass tougher emission rules, so instead we are focused on incentives for alternatives.
        • 8 Months Ago
        The difference is cost of reducing emissions "short term" and "long term"

        If you want to be short sighted... then BEVs are not worth it because you can lower emissions faster by small improvements in ICE technology.

        If you want to NOT revisit this issue in 10 years, then BEVs are the way to go.
      • 8 Months Ago
      As an amusing FYI, their know by their acronym "DUH"..... just sayin'...
      • 8 Months Ago
      Their whole premise is shortsighted and disappointing from a “green group”. What good to clean up the grid and THEN start to put out cars that can take advantage of the cleaner energy? Do you know how long it takes to turn the fleet over once it's out there with billions of cars?
      1) They want to sit and wait until we have another 500million oil burning cars (a very possible number to add) and they think that a few % increase in efficiency will somehow make this ok?
      2) They ignore that BEV’s pollute less than ICE vehicles today, even when you throw in coal
      3) Only focusing on the pollution side and ignoring the economic costs of oil (subsidies, wars, cleanups, health issues, melting down world economies every time there is a hiccup in supply, etc, etc, etc)
      It is so frustrating to see someone this stupid. They have no problem throwing even more money at oil and they are not complaining to stop subsidies for that, yet they will complain about the most viable solution on the table to get away from it.

      This should’t be taken seriously and I agree with Richard…I smell oil lobbyist.
        • 8 Months Ago
        David M,
        Yes, I've been reading some of your other postings about Germany and their energy grid for the last few weeks/months. It's really hard to understand some of the choices they are making in the name of green and I've NEVER understood why a country with the solar intensity of New York City would act like they are in Arizona and subsidize solar so heavily.

        I applaud their intent, but why solar??? It just doesn't make economic sense at that lattitude. And now they are looking at offshore instead of onshore for the wind farms? I know that lots of political things go into these decisions but it is such a shame.

        I've spent a little bit of time in Germany, but I still don't understand why they are so against nukes. It's doing ok in France.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Germany, green window dressing aside, is powered by coal. However, a fascination with windmills and solar has bumped up prices to pay for this comparatively small energy contribution:
        http://www.e-control.at/portal/page/portal/medienbibliothek/presse/dokumente/pdfs/HEPI_Juni_englisch_Final.pdf

        In US dollars electricity is around $0.30kwh in Germany, in nuclear France around $0.17kwh, with lots of spare capacity at night.

        Instead of building nuclear power plants, Germany plans huge amounts of off-shore wind, which is at least 2-3 times more expensive than on-shore.

        No wonder electric cars sound less attractive in Germany.
        In France if you topped up 20kwh on average rates, not off-peak, you would still only be paying $3.40 for ~100 miles.
        The case is very different for Germany where it may make more sense (to the individual company) to reform coal for hydrogen and avoid contributions to the ludicrously expensive wind schemes.
        • 8 Months Ago
        The solar energy Germany gets is a lot less than New York, which is on the same latitude as Madrid!
        Germany is also cloudier.
      • 5 Years Ago
      IMHO, the incremental rate of ICE improvements and its benefit will be easily outstripped by the growth of cars and hence C02. Then eventually in the (near) future, government will have to push for EV anyways. Just start that push NOW, and the growth of cars will be ICE free/less sooner and for the better.

      On the other hand, pushing for lower emissions on ICE vehicles may be just another way to push for EVs anyways...just regulated to a really low emission standards.

      Both ways would get there from here, but the incentive "carrot" is way faster than the regulation "whip".

      • 8 Months Ago
      Subsidies will speed the adoption of electric vehicles and bring the cost down for all of us far sooner than market forces would if left alone. In fact, market forces are manipulated to such an extreme level that there is zero chance of electric vehicles succeeding. Look at oil prices. They go up and a bunch of companies spring up to make electric cars. Then oil prices go way down only long enough to destroy the EV companies - and then start going back up again. This is no coincidence. When will we wake up and realize that there is no "free market" in the world today. The biggest multinationals manipulate supply and demand and that cannot be debated. They manipulate the laws in certain countries (like the USA) as well. There is no free market.

      So, the only way for us little guys to even the balance again is for us to all act together - FOR our own self interests and AGAINST the vested interests of polluter companies.

      Electric vehicle prices will go just like every other product ever made. As production goes up prices go down. And innovations in the manufacturing process are found and that lowers prices even more. And advances in technology are incorporated which bring down prices even more. That is how we started out with $5000 VCRs and now you can buy one for $20. Every product ever made (the mass produced ones at least) has followed this exact same path. EVs are going to be the same - they just need a temporary lift from the taxpayer to get the ball rolling.

      Trying to make this all about class warfare (my tax dollars going to help some rich guy buy his second car) is missing the point. Prices will come down as mass production kicks in and you will see far more benefit to the public from increased numbers of electric vehicles than some minor (and probably temporary) reduction in ICE emissions.

      If Germany wants to remain addicted to oil, with inherent peril to their economy, then let them. America will benefit, we will profit from their lost opportunities and their lack of vision.
      • 8 Months Ago
      The Oil and Coal Industries clearly have the Money TODAY, to INVEST in a Future Technology. We use Government Incentives to Show Them what they should have seen all along.

      How long do we have to continue to tell Industry to Do Something about Global Warming, Energy Independence, Environmental Degradation, and Balance of Payment's to Saudi and Middle Eastern Governments.

      Exxon, for example, is spending LESS THEN 2% of profits on R&D!!!
      It's time these 70+ Idiots Retired and we get an Executive Elite Smart Enough To Invest in the FUTURE.

      Exxon, Build Solar, Wind, Battery and Electric Car's and components and Make MONEY with FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES.

      And STOP spending Shareholder Money on Lobbying against a Technology That YOU should have been a MAJOR PLAYER in for the last 20 years!
      This is Corporate FRAUD.
      • 8 Months Ago
      "we know EVs have environmental benefits regardless of where the electricity comes. Throw in the fact that power can be generated by cleaner technologies like wind or hydro-power"...

      Huh? Where do you get off with making such a blanket statement?

      Just because power CAN be generated using cleaner technologies, that doesn't mean it WILL be generated that way. Wind and hydro currently satisfy only a small fraction of the current power demand. Furthermore, environmental advocacy groups will oppose developing both at scales that will allow wind and hydro to contribute more. Cape Wind is a good example.

      The simple fact is that unless we see a renewed emphasis on nuclear power, the overwhelming majority of our electricity will come from burning coal or natural gas.

      Also - considering the environmental impact of nickel and lithium mining and the other exotic metals required to construct the batteries, and the finite life-cycle of those batteries. All of those impacts are externalized with EVs.

      Lastly - people are also not looking at the true cost of recharging the batteries. Recharging an EV battery will be like running a standard pool pump continuously overnight. In California - that will push every EV owner into the top tiers of electrical consumption where PG&E charges $0.42-$.49/Kwh. Using the current PG&E rate tiers, recharging a depleted EV battery may cost $7-$8.

      If your commute is less than 40 miles, it's not clear that an EV will cost any less to operate than a similarly configured, high-mileage turbo-diesel powered car. You'll just be writing bigger checks to the utility company instead of swiping your credit card at the pump.

      It's most definitely NOT clear that EVs will have environmental benefits and it's wrong to assume and assert they will.
        • 8 Months Ago
        Nice repeat of FUD talking points. Of course all of these have been refuted numerous times, but don't let that stop you.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X