Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
They show all their methodology, math, ect..
Within the conditions they lay out, their results are 'facts.'
You told me that you haven't seen their work.
Yet you've already indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced the quanta.
' Uncertainty' is the hallmark of the premise behind BEV propaganda.
I'm picking up a familiar odor.
|
I've not indicted the data, I've said it's in conflict with other data which also lays out all the parameters used and are also "facts".
You're correct in that I'm very skeptical that an EV emits less than an ICE after only 1.5 years of typical miles driven given the fact that the battery alone is $10,000.
In 1.5 years, that's 18,000 miles. A 30 MPG car would consume 600 gallons.
It will take more than someone simply stating that a battery only takes 74 gallons of fossil fuel energy to go from minerals in the ground to a battery in a car to convince me. Why does it cost $10,000 when it has less than $300 of energy to produce?
Then, there's the copper and rare earths and other minerals in motors and inverters, and all the other unique components that comprise an EV.
I'm willing to be wrong about this, it's just not clearing the common sense bar at the moment. I suspect there's something in the assumptions or the measurements that is inaccurate.
I am pro EV generally speaking. Even more though, I'm pro truth. Whenever something seems wrong, I'm going to push against it, even if that harms the reputation of something I like in the short term. In the long term, truth wins every time.
We're on the same page when it comes to dismissing anti-EV propaganda. I'm on a conservative leaning forum (security cameras), and I'm often correcting their misunderstanding of EVs. That makes me unpopular there, too. Truth-seeking sets people as outcasts because they don't neatly align with any particular group.