Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, July 01, 2024

Funny what happens if you take Tesla out of the numbers, though

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

... That's a drop of nine percent in the past year, according to the analysis, which found respondents were most concerned about EV reliability and cost when comparing them to their gas-guzzling counterparts.

Even more interesting is the considerable decline in the number of people who believe EVs are better for the environment than internal combustion engines. While respondents still said that environmental benefits are the best thing about EVs, only 47 percent now believe that to be the case " a 20 percent drop since 2021.

The data also suggests that enthusiasm for EVs is largely split on political grounds, with far more self-described Democrats showing interest in an EV, and a full 35 percent of self-identified Republicans believing that electric cars are actually worse for the environment than gas vehicles.

To be fair to those not convinced that EVs are an environmental benefit, there are concerns to be raised about the technology. Battery production can be incredibly environmentally destructive, and charging EVs using energy generated by fossil fuel-burning power plants doesn't exactly mean they're running clean.

Nonetheless, the data does not suggest that EVs are inherently worse for the environment.


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-07-01 12:03 AM | Reply

3 in 10 ain't bad.

How many are considering a bicycle? Maybe 3 in 1,000.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-07-01 10:22 AM | Reply

3 in 10 consider it, but only 0.7 in 10 buy them.

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-07-01 12:06 PM | Reply

EV's mostly suck. It's why Democrats are trying to mandate them.

#4 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-07-01 12:15 PM | Reply

"EV's mostly suck."

Oh so they're just like cars.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-07-01 12:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Nonetheless, the data does not suggest that EVs are inherently worse for the environment.
#1 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I thought they were inherently BETTER for the environment...that's what the DR was drooling about a couple of weeks ago.
how many people regret buying an EV?

https://www.autonews.com mobility-report mckinsey-survey-46-ev-owners-unlikely-buy-another
McKinsey survey: 46% of EV owners unlikely to buy another - Automotive News

#6 | Posted by brerrabbit at 2024-07-01 12:44 PM | Reply

but only 0.7 in 10 buy them.

#3 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Because only 7 percent can actually afford them.

#7 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2024-07-01 12:56 PM | Reply

Currently, EV's that can be charged at home make sense as daily commuter vehicles, for around town. They still seem highly inconvenient for road trips further than a couple hundred mile. Hybrids make much more sense for longer trips.

#8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2024-07-01 12:59 PM | Reply

I've been looking at them. They are close to being priced right,
about 5k too much, from what I've seen. The main problem is
two fold. There should be larger tax incentives for their purchase,
and there need to be WAY MORE CHARGERS.

Where I live in WV, I know of only 2 chargers within 15 miles.

It's a No Brainer that the Oil and Gas Lobby (i.e. the U.S. auto
industry) wants them dead.

#9 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-01 01:41 PM | Reply

People don't want to spend 2 hours at a public charger. You need a home with a garage for it to be practical.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-07-01 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

True. I've accepted that Sitz. It's about
$600-$1200 to have one installed, depending
upon where you live, another 1k to buy a decent
fast charger. No, but you STILL need multiple chargers,
per every 50 - 100 miles across the nation to service
those who didn't charge enough, are pushing the limit
of their range, or forgot to charge the night before.

And most new vehicles can charge up to 80% of full within
a half hour now, if on a high powered charger.

Within 2 more years that will be a 15 minute wait.

I give the tech 2-3 more years to build more infrastructure
and for the prices to come down. Then will be the time
to move to them.

Of course, Trump, if elected will kybosh all of that in
favor of oil company donations.

#11 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-01 02:13 PM | Reply

IMHO they're still the future. Government just tried to push them too early. Battery tech has been advancing dramatically, and more breakthroughs are just around the corner. Once charging speed gets into the ten minute mark and range hits more like 500 miles - all of which probably low balls what solid state will be capable of - they'll be a serious contender.

At the moment, I get the other side though. Still too expensive, charge too slow, range would make them a great city car, but one couldn't be my only. 3-4 times a year I drive 7-800 miles on vacations, and the charging infrastructure isn't there, and even if it was, it would multiply my driving time too much for a single day. And that's not even going into where the batteries come from.

Hybrid currently seems like the best answer by a long shot. But as an investment, it's a dead end.

#12 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-07-01 04:24 PM | Reply

And most new vehicles can charge up to 80% of full within
a half hour now, if on a high powered charger.
Within 2 more years that will be a 15 minute wait.

#11 | POSTED BY EARTHMUSE AT 2024-07-01 02:13 PM | FLAG:

You can fast charge a lipo in a few minutes if you have enough volts & amps to throw at it and cables that won't melt. It comes at a a cost, permanent cellular damage to the battery. The healthy charge time for a lipo is 1C which is about an hour from 10% to above 90%, and it needs to be discharged back to 90% for battery longevity.

#13 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-07-01 07:55 PM | Reply

__________
#9 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-01 01:41 PM | Reply
It's a No Brainer that the Oil and Gas Lobby (i.e. the U.S. auto industry) wants them dead.

"Oil and Gas Lobby" is actually a "Big Energy" lobby - yes, "Big Oil and Gas," including Saudi Aramco, are primary participants in research and development of "green and blue hydrogen" and other renewable clean energy sources.

Also, "Big Energy" is primary beneficiary of "modern electrification" political efforts, because most electricity in the US (~84.5%) is derived from so-called "fossil fuels," nuclear and hydroelectricity, while "intermittent renewables" (wind and solar, which incur additional and "not clean" recurring storage expenses) have been stuck at about 14%... and because their actual "new capacity" requires increase in backup "fossil fuel" plants:

Total - all sources - 4,178 Billion kWh
Fossil fuels (total) . 60.0%
. Natural gas ....... 43.2%
. Coal .............. 16.3%
. Petroleum (total)... 0.5%

Nuclear ............. 18.7%
Hydropower ............ 5.8%

Wind ................. 10.1%
Solar (total) ......... 3.9%
Biomass (total) ....... 1.1%
Geothermal ............ 0.4%

"Utility-scale solar has almost quadrupled in the past decade, rising from 5% to almost 20% of the grid. Yet it has not displaced thermal generation, which rose from 28% to 36% of the grid. We even wonder whether wind and solar are entrenching natural gas generators that can backstop their daily, weekly and even seasonal volatility." - report: thundersaidenergy.com

So, increasing energy supply with intermittent "renewables" is impossible without first increasing energy supply with firm power (nuclear, hydrogen, natgas, etc.) - which raises the question why the intermittent utility-scale wind and solar (at cost of 2,900-4,200 acres/GW) may be needed at all, or ever becomes TCO-cost-effective, except possibly in very special circumstances.

Hydropower supplied about 16% of the world's energy in 2020, in the US it's less than 6% and pretty much limited to current capacity due to geography.

Nuclear power supplied 10.5% of world electricity in 2020, the US has just under 19%, and the US Energy Secretary recently finally called for restarting "retired" and building more nuke plants. Many other countries, including Japan and European countries are following the suite and rethinking their reliance on "intermittent renewables" in favor of nuclear power.

There are also designs for floating nuclear power plants (FNPPs), which don't produce a huge amount of energy, but are safe and mobile, so often can provide power where needed, e.g., in cases of natural disasters, to power temporary or long-term offshore projects, such as desalination or fishing stations or oil and gas production, building artificial islands, or where the land-based power plant would be too difficult or too costly to build.

World's first FNPP ("proof of concept") was built in 1967, in a converted Liberty ship. Russia's first FNPP "Akademik Lomonosov" started operations in 2019. China had FNPP plans since 2016, which have been suspended for a while, but some "baby reactors" may soon be deployed in South China Sea.
__________

#14 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-07-01 09:11 PM | Reply

__________
#14 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-07-01 09:11 PM
Japan and European countries are following the suite - s/b "following suit"
__________

#15 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-07-01 09:29 PM | Reply

Just like Subaru ran out of gay people to buy their products, full EV's ran out of -------- to buy theirs.

You really have 2 choices if you really want to go this route:

1.) You buy a Tesla as it is a superior EV product and software and support will actually be there in the future

2.) You buy a Rav4 plug-in hybrid which makes the most sense for people that can do charging at home. The downside of hybrids is the same as for full EVs - no one really knows the battery life but at least with the Rav4, if the battery dies (battery expected to last 3-5 years), you can still use it as a ICE vehicle.

If you live in an apartment in a deep blue -------- city where you are utterly reliant on public chargers, you have to be a complete moron to even consider buying an EV.

#16 | Posted by Claudio at 2024-07-01 10:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There is plenty of info on YouTube that would refute much of what
both CutiePie and Claudio have said. But they are supposed to be
adults, so I will let them look it up.

Not buying the Oil Lobby Propaganda of Self Preservation anymore.
Their days are largely numbered. I could cite you a recent report
that said that Energy from Green Sources just this year passed Energy
Generated from Fossil Fuel Sources for the first time in America.

But again, you are supposed to be adults, and COULD look it up if
you wanted to. But probably won't.

And seriously CutiePie, citing and article from a "energy mag"
called 'Thundersaidenergy.com'? Oh yeah, that sounds reputable!
Sounds like a mix between Toxic Masculinity and the Oil Lobby...Lol,
which probably figures since it is likely a GOP Oil Lobby sponsored rag...

#17 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-02 05:54 AM | Reply

__________
#17 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-02 05:54 AM
There is plenty of info on YouTube that would refute much of what...

... And seriously CutiePie, citing and article from a "energy mag" called 'Thundersaidenergy.com'? Oh yeah, that sounds reputable!
Sounds like a mix between Toxic Masculinity and the Oil Lobby...Lol, which probably figures since it is likely a GOP Oil Lobby sponsored rag...

Maybe if you were "suppposed to be an adult" you would spent a few minutes researching what the reputable consultancy firm they are, instead of getting your "information" from Youtube - enough said right there!

Most of the numbers I took from DOE. The rest of the info is from other official government sources - you can verify all of them if you can bother to check them. The report by Thunder was requested by California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) as part of their CCST - KEY CHALLENGES for CA ENERGY FUTURE commission investigation and recommendations:
ccst.us - CCST - KEY CHALLENGES for CA ENERGY FUTURE - [PDF, 108pgs]
ccst.us - CCST - Overview

See more here about "reports" on Green Energy (BTW, Green Energy includes Nuclear and Hydropower (and sometimes NG), which are not "intermittent renewables," and hydropower cannot really expand, so its percentage of total energy generated and consumed will keep shrinking) : drudge.com - drudge.com/read-comment/275691/7020262

"Jul 1, 2020 " Thunder Said Energy (TSE) is a leading research consultancy focusing on energy technologies and the energy transition into disruptive energy technologies, founded in 2019 by Wall Street energy analyst Rob West, CFA"

clcouncil.org - Analysis of Climate Leadership Council Proposal | Summary of Key Findings - PDF (4 pgs)
|------- "By driving technological innovation, the CLC plan would reduce US CO2 emissions by 57% by 2035 (vs. 2005), unlock $1.4tn of new investment, create 1.6M jobs and enhance US competitiveness." -------|

This is only 4 pages PDF (shorter than watching most YT videos of "ill repute," and it has colorful charts and pictures even a child can understand!) - if you still think these reports are financed by "Big Oil" lobby, then you are not likely to be an adult.

www.energy.gov - Energy Shot Summit, August 2021

|------- "In my travels around the world I can't name a country that hasn't expressed excitement about hydrogen. From Saudi Arabia to India to Germany to Japan we're setting up hydrogen partnerships around the world to advance this critical technology that every country understands has the opportunity to play a vital role in the clean energy transition," said John Kerry, special presidential envoy for climate, in August 2021 at Hydrogen Shot Summit. -------|

www.hydrogeninsight.com - 'Nobody wants to pay for it' | ExxonMobil and Aramco CEOs say green hydrogen is too expensive to replace fossil fuels

|------- Mar 19, 2024 " Aramco CEO Amin Nasser told delegates that, in energy terms, the cost of green H2 amounted to the equivalent of $400 per barrel of oil...

Exxon boss also said his company would not produce blue H2 if it could not access 45V production tax credits.
-------|
__________

#18 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-07-02 07:28 AM | Reply

Hydrogen is inevitable. It's okay that there's other energy storage technologies on the road to it.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-07-02 07:56 AM | Reply

Nobody wants to pay for it' | ExxonMobil and Aramco CEOs say green hydrogen is too expensive to replace fossil fuels...

You answered my question. Letting Oil Execs and the Oil Lobby say, "No one wants to pay for it",
is like letting Hannibal Lector be a food critic at a Cannibal Convention. OF COURSE THAT IS WHAT
THEY ARE GOING TO SAY.

Hey, here is an idea. You try to protect your oil stocks and try to convince one of your MAGA friends
(who has no brain) of what you want them to think, and I will continue to do independent research and
devote my money where I want to spend it.

fyi...A hydrogen engine has already been developed by Toyota.
www.youtube.com

Green energy surpassed fossil fuel energy for the first time in America.
www.eia.gov

See, I can link articles to support my research too. And they weren't the Oil Lobby generated Dreck that you posted...

#20 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-02 08:54 AM | Reply

__________
#20 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-07-02 08:54 AM
Green energy surpassed fossil fuel energy for the first time in America.
www.eia.gov
See, I can link articles to support my research too. And they weren't the Oil Lobby generated Dreck that you posted...

Yes, you can link to "your research" but apparently you couldn't read "your research" or my post:

I specifically pointed out that what some call Green Energy includes Nuclear, Hydropower and NG (Natural Gas), not the "intermittent renewables" wind and solar.

From your link:

|------- "In 2022, generation from renewable sources - wind, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal - surpassed coal-fired generation in the electric power sector for the first time. Renewable generation surpassed nuclear generation for the first time in 2021 and continued to provide more electricity than nuclear generation last year.

Natural gas remained the largest source of U.S. electricity generation, increasing from a 37% share of U.S. generation in 2021 to 39% in 2022. The share of coal-fired generation decreased from 23% in 2021 to 20% in 2022 as a number of coal-fired power plants retired and the remaining plants were used less. The share of nuclear generation decreased from 20% in 2021 to 19% in 2022, following the Palisades nuclear power plant's retirement in May 2022. The combined wind and solar share of total generation increased from 12% in 2021 to 14% in 2022. Hydropower generation remained unchanged, at 6%, in 2022. The shares for biomass and geothermal sources remained unchanged, at less than 1%.
-------|

Now look at the "Drek that you posted" and it (from 2022) matches almost exactly the numbers that I posted (for 2023) - your article was just playing with words describing "Green Energy" and comparing combined numbers for all "renewables" to either single coal- or single nuclear-generated power.

fyi...A hydrogen engine has already been developed by Toyota. www.youtube.com

FYI: "In 1807 Franois Isaac de Rivaz designed the first hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine. In 1965, Roger E. Billings, then a high school student, converted a Model A to run on hydrogen."

Here is better information, should you choose to accept it, and gosh! maybe even read it (it also has pictures!) :

www.fastechus.com - The Past, Present and Future of Hydrogen Vehicles: 2023 Update | Renewable Energy - April 4, 2023

Hey, here is an idea. You try to protect your oil stocks and try to convince one of your MAGA friends (who has no brain)

Here's a better idea. Learn to read understand and add numbers, and stop beating the strawmen about my non-existent MAGA friends and oil stocks, and maybe some people here will start thinking that you are supposed to be an adult.

After you stop beating the dead strawmen, go and watch your YT videos, where you get all your "information."
__________

#21 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-07-02 09:51 AM | Reply

__________
#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-07-02 07:56 AM
Hydrogen is inevitable. It's okay that there's other energy storage technologies on the road to it.

Will take time and investment for R&D, trials and errors... but what doesn't?
__________

#22 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-07-02 10:01 AM | Reply

cutiepie you realize no one reads your word walls, right?

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-02 12:40 PM | Reply

Pretty sure ChatGPT writes them, so he doesn't even read them either.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-07-02 12:42 PM | Reply

As an engineer I look at everything with a bent towards practicality. If something isn't practical and convenient and cost efficient why would I use it? Certainly not to enhance someones (Joe Biden) political party views. EVs are not practical for most people at present time. They may come up with improved energy and storage but not yet. Improved cradle to grave impact of EVs on the environment are concocted and not proven.

Politics, accompanying corruption and DEI sadly drives everything in our current hyper political world which makes society jaded.

#25 | Posted by Robson at 2024-07-03 10:51 AM | Reply

"EVs are not practical for most people at present time."

In what way(s) are they not practical?

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-07-03 10:56 AM | Reply

#26. Just a few examples.
EVs are dangerous due to spontaneous battery fires and are excluded from many parking garages and ferries, not to mention access to convenient fast charging. Cold weather diminishes battery efficiency when needed the most for heat and longevity.

#27 | Posted by Robson at 2024-07-03 12:29 PM | Reply

Decent answers, but none are deal breakers.

"excluded from many parking garages and ferries"
That's not a concern for the vast majority of people.

"access to convenient fast charging"
You'd know if that's a hurdle before you buy an EV.

"when needed the most"
People travel less, not more, when it's below freezing out.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-07-03 12:35 PM | Reply

If only we could remove politics and hyperbole from msm and society and replace with just common sense opinions wed have a better country.

Biden gives illegal immigrants that offer our society nothing your money so they live free on your dime. Is that his political hyperbole or mine? I call it an outrage that could lead us to civil.war.

#29 | Posted by Robson at 2024-07-03 06:29 PM | Reply

Ive always had AWD or 4wd car or truck even though I dont need it most of the time. As an engineer Boy Scout and vet I still prefer preparing for security if I can afford it. I do remember once when snow was on the ground from Veterans Day 11-11 until February. Forget the year. It happens but rare. Electric cars have no viable option for being prepared. They offer only an atta Boy from JOE.

#30 | Posted by Robson at 2024-07-03 06:56 PM | Reply

As a Democrat I can assure you dont think like conservatives and others who like being prepared. Dems depend on government for handouts and security.

#31 | Posted by Robson at 2024-07-03 07:02 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort