E-Motorhome

[Babe2201]

What's your explanation for the recent rapid global warming shown in this graphic?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1576961303314399233

We have been listening to this for over 3 decades now. I remember hearing how warm the winters were for a couple of years and it was all because of global warming and then most of New England had one of the coldest winters on record. Then they said it was climate change and not global warming.

Weather patterns have been changing long before ICE vehicles were around.

A lot of times the people telling us what we need to do to help with climate change have 15-20 times the carbon footprint of the average citizen.

 

[udidwht]

What makes you believe that?

Here in CA if the new EVs could keep up with the demand, it would probably already be happening with cars even without the new CA laws coming in 2035.

Trucks, motorhomes and other larger heavier vehicles will take years longer and are excluded even in CAs 2035 laws where all new CARS must be electric.

But If Tesla wasn't so busy trying to keep up with the demand for their cars, we would probably have a lot of their trucks on the road by now.

-Don- Auburn, CA

Wanting to be all electric is entirely different than it actually happening.

 

[udidwht]

The problem of climate change is extremely exaggerated and how much proof is there that it is caused by humans? The sky is not falling.

Spot on.

Indeed the sky is not falling. Going EV isn't anymore cleaner than ICE tech. We'll literally have to mine the hell out of the planet to go all EV. And the vehicles will still have much petroleum based product in them.

ICE tech will have a huge leap once cam-less tech hits the market. Not far away.

 

[uchu]

Going EV isn't anymore cleaner than ICE tech

That's false. No matter how you slice it, ICEs will always generate green house gases, mostly CO2. The tally from road vehicles is currently about 1.4 billion tons per year.

If you think that amount of CO2 alone is not contributing to climate change, you are kidding yourself.

 

[whiteva]

As soon as the powers that be figure out how to extinguish the battery fire after an accident,,, I'll consider an EV.

 

[Larry N.]

If you think that amount of CO2 alone is not contributing to climate change, you are kidding yourself.

If you are talking only about what each vehicle itself emits, you're right. I'm not sure anyone has completely tallied up the TOTAL results including mining through manufacturing, plus generation of electricity vs the equivalent for an ICE (drilling, refining, mining, etc.). It gets complex, to say the least.

In my mind there is too much rhetoric and not enough substance in total claims, with some aspects (probably of both types) being ignored or, at least, given short shrift.

 

[tlmgcamp]

If you are talking only about what each vehicle itself emits, you're right. I'm not sure anyone has completely tallied up the TOTAL results including mining through manufacturing, plus generation of electricity vs the equivalent for an ICE (drilling, refining, mining, etc.). It gets complex, to say the least.

In my mind there is too much rhetoric and not enough substance in total claims, with some aspects (probably of both types) being ignored or, at least, given short shrift.

Interesting how the Keystone pipeline project was too environmentally horrific to continue but the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine proposal is getting pushed through with no significant press coverage

Some stats:

• disturb roughly 5,545 acres of natural habitat
• pump up to 3,250 gallons per minute of groundwater
• utilize 2,900 tons of sulfuric acid per day at the on-site sulfuric acid plant
• excavate to depths up to 400 feet, requiring de-watering of the excavation with potential for impact on local water wells.
• Includes sacred lands of native americans

This mine is only for lithium. Mining for nickel, copper and other materials will also be needed. It is estimated that 500,000 pounds of soil needs to be moved to produce the refined metals for each EV battery. (See attached photo of publication, couldn't get link to work) All this is only for the EV's equivalent of a "fuel tank". This says nothing about the source of the fuel to go into that "tank".

This post will probably get me labeled as one of the dreaded "Anti-EVers", which is a symptom of the "if you don't blindly fall in line then you are irrelevant" attitude of the day. However, my point is really simple...if there is going to be a fair and balanced discussion on EV v ICE, we can't just take the positives of one side and compare them against the negatives of the other. Both sides needs to be reviewed from cradle to grave for a meaningful assessment.

 

[Jayflight]

his post will probably get me labeled as one of the dreaded "Anti-EVers", which is a symptom of the "if you don't blindly fall in line then you are irrelevant" attitude of the day. However, my point is really simple...if there is going to be a fair and balanced discussion on EV v ICE, we can't just take the positives of one side and compare them against the negatives of the other. Both sides needs to be reviewed from cradle to grave for a meaningful assessment.

Thats not going to happen here. You will be told the tired old reply that you are entitled to your opinion but YOUR opinions are not FACTS. Its amazing that there are a tiny handful of folks that has the right answer to everything and you will be told several times in these topics.

 

[udidwht]

That's false. No matter how you slice it, ICEs will always generate green house gases, mostly CO2. The tally from road vehicles is currently about 1.4 billion tons per year.

If you think that amount of CO2 alone is not contributing to climate change, you are kidding yourself.

That is false:

"If you think that amount of CO2 alone is not contributing to climate change, you are kidding yourself"

If you think 'carbon emissions' alone is the root of climate change your sorely wrong. Tree saplings are the largest contributor to carbon emissions globally.

 

[DonTom]

This post will probably get me labeled as one of the dreaded "Anti-EVers",

Here is some more of Mark P. Mill's nonsense.

"Pure nonsense: Debunking the latest attack on renewable energy"

-Don- Auburn, CA

 

[udidwht]

The problem with 'reenable energy' is how the phrase is used or should I say...misused. Anything including carbon can be deemed renewable.

 

[DonTom]

The problem with 'reenable energy' is how the phrase is used or should I say...misused. Anything including carbon can be deemed renewable.

What name would you suggest to mean power by solar, wind, etc?

-Don- Auburn, CA

 

[Skookum]

However, my point is really simple...if there is going to be a fair and balanced discussion on EV v ICE, we can't just take the positives of one side and compare them against the negatives of the other. Both sides needs to be reviewed from cradle to grave for a meaningful assessment.

I find it interesting that you only discussed the negatives of EV's, then. I challenge you to come up with a list, just like you did above, detailing how horrible ICV manufacturing is, starting with oil production.

 

[Oldgator73]

I find it interesting that you only discussed the negatives of EV's, then. I challenge you to come up with a list, just like you did above, detailing how horrible ICV manufacturing is, starting with oil production.

For arguments sake let’s say the manufacturing of both ICE and EV’s are equally horrible which would leave us to only consider the environmental impact the operation of the vehicles bestows on us. Since EV’s do not produce any emmisions it would stand to reason that they are more environmentally friendly. Or is this argument to simple?

 

[DonTom]

This mine is only for lithium.

And the only one in the USA. Located near where those RVer's got lost.

Not a new mine for lith. It's an old silver mine.

-Don- Auburn, CA

 

[Skookum]

For arguments sake let’s say the manufacturing of both ICE and EV’s are equally horrible which would leave us to only consider the environmental impact the operation of the vehicles bestows on us. Since EV’s do not produce any emmisions it would stand to reason that they are more environmentally friendly. Or is this argument to simple?

It's a little bit too simple as an argument, but a definitive "win" in the EV column for sure. Those clear wins need to be evaluated against other unique impacts, but it surely doesn't mean those things are moot just because some guy says they are in a huff about lithium mining.

 

[Oldgator73]

but it surely doesn't mean those things are moot just because some guy says they are in a huff about lithium mining.

There are many operations performed that are environmental disasters that I would posit those that abhor lithium mining don’t give a second thought to; blowing the tops off mountains in WV to mine coal; clear cutting forests in Washington State and Oregon; dumping hazardous waste into rivers and streams, just to name a few.

 

[udidwht]

What name would you suggest to mean power by solar, wind, etc?

-Don- Auburn, CA

Easy...

Solar power

Wind power

Neither are close to powering an entire metropolis like hydro power or nuclear.

 

[udidwht]

It's a little bit too simple as an argument, but a definitive "win" in the EV column for sure. Those clear wins need to be evaluated against other unique impacts, but it surely doesn't mean those things are moot just because some guy says they are in a huff about lithium mining.

Lithium is only 1 part of it. Even cobalt is needed.

What we need to focus on is...

Cold fusion. That is where the money needs to go.

 

[DonTom]

Neither are close to powering an entire metropolis

Explain that to India with their 2.25 BILLION watt Bhadla Solar Park.

Then explain it to China next. The USA is way behind!

-Don- Auburn, CA