This is refreshing to hear a conservative not promote all the lies of EV’s, but have a rational objective view on the matter. EV’s are part of the answer to cleaner energy consumption already, imagine second and third generation EV’s. They’ll be light years ahead of ICE counterparts. Biggest takeaways: 1. Lifetime CO2 EV emissions when compared to their ICE counterparts are less than half. 2. US switching to EV’s won’t put a dent in the “climate change” equation. Which is why the reason for the switch should be superior technology first, then reduced pollution second. If EV’s can become cheaper and more convenient, they’ll take off. That day is coming soon. 3. Tesla Model Y is the world’s best selling car right now. 4. You can be for EV’s and conservative. Big shock there. 5. Electric air taxis are a topic these folks should research. That may be the future too. #lilliumjet
@@timmyj2366 I think you miss a huge win for a much smaller fail here. Forget CO2 emissions, as you said EVs make next to no difference in the grand scheme of things and it's not even clear more CO2 is bad. Local pollution reduction in population dense areas however is a huge win, where pollution reduction by way of EV and hybrid car use can be exported to gas/coal plants (and renewable where applicable) far from population centers, and whose pollution tends to be much more widespread and dispersed (high altitude) than the highly localized and concentrated pollution from tailpipe emissions. From a govt perspective, electricity generation can be regulated easier than millions of cars. Edit: and EVs are better in traffic efficency wise. Forget targets, forget subsidies, imo if govt wants bang for buck, focus on charging infrastructure in population centers AND cheap electricity. That means continuing gas etc because expensive electricity is the biggest (and will be) ultimate deterrent for adopters, even over charge times.
The first speaker said that cars and trucks create the largest part of transport emissions in the US. That’s true. They make up about 57%. Transport itself, makes up 28% of total US emissions. The USA overall, contributes about 16% of global emissions. Therefore, cars and truck in the US, make up 57% of 28% of 16% of global emissions. That amounts to about 0.0255% of the global total.
@@andrewnelson3681 It's not 2.6%, because climate is global. Taking your numbers at face value, the relevant percentage is 57% x 28% = 16%. If EV could even just save a bit more than half of that, it would be a global carbon savings of 10%, a big deal indeed.
I'm guessing that Benji did his roadtrip during spring or summer months 🤷♀️ I'll try to make this brief, I had to make an emergency flight to Denver last January and need to use a "ride" service from the airport, I dressed as best I could with clothes I had considering I live near Phoenix Arizona!! When I landed it was 0°F (-17 C) ZERO! And I was sent a Tesla. The airport is Not well heated, my driver was on the other side of the terminal,,,,,,, by the time I got into that car I was CHILLED TO THE BONE! 10 minutes or so into my 40 min ride, I commented what a hard time I was having getting warm! My hands and arms were still frozen, and my face, the driver said he'd turn up the heat, moments later, I just and exclaimed "I Feel Like My A$$ IS ON FIRE!" He apologized and explained that only the SEAT HEATER WAS ON! Because the cabin heater was to draining on the batteries! That was THE MOST MISERABLE 40 MINUTES OF MY LIFE!!
@@JNavas2 It could have had a full charge before he left wherever 🤷♀️ Everyone knows that temps that cold means extended charge times and reduced range. I don't care what the reason was the heat wasn't available when needed, life at times, is unpredictable, I don't want to have to figure out what features I cab use and what I can't. That's outside of finding a charging station, charge time,(If chargers are work) fees, in network out of network, buying tires more often and 50% higher insurance! Nope, I'll keep the 2 I have( Mini & 40ft Class A) I'm perfectly happy with those😁
@@janiceperkins4340 Sure, go with what works best for you, just as I do. And don't blame your ICE vehicle when you run out of gas. 😉 My next vehicle might just be a plug-in hybrid.
Let's not forget geo thermal, furvos and other fraking based geo thermal soultions can also be used and thanks to oil inducstry we can do it today because of fraking. I don't understand when he said battery storage is not there when there are facilites today using that technology.
Love the fact this is a fairly civil discussion. Some of the gentleman's facts are off. One thing we forget that fossil fuel have had high subsidies for 100's of years. Also minerals taken out of the ground are mined once where as fossil fuels are pulled from the ground (mined) continuously, burned and not recyclable. Also the data shows even a EV powered by coal, the electricity produces less CO, than an ICE burning fuel. The legacy auto need to make money so of course the backed off, they sell ICE that is where they make money today. But some will be more ready than others GM, appears ready. Ford backed off and Stelantis was way off. Toyota is not an advocate of EV and nor should they be if there primary investment was Hybrids and Hydrogen. As for affecting groups, there are arguements, but doing nothing is not an option if we want to help our kids futures. Enjoyed this debate.
When she says EV are the biggest emission reduction bang for your buck. That simply isn't true. For the same money you can buy a hybrid and solar. So you have the benefit of fuel savings in the car and energy savings at home. And also not have the problems associated with pure ev. And also have far less emissions than owning just an EV.
@@GWAForUTBE Yes because Toyota hybrids have proven be to be very unreliable . But this is about "saving the planet" so if more complexity (even though it's not) is better for the planet, then that's the best option otherwise the argument every uses why we need to transition to inferior EVs is wrong.
@@GWAForUTBE We want internal combustion engines. Industrial civilization isn't possible without them. Improvements in electric motors, batteries, and electronics also increase the viability of ICE in hybrid drive trains.
@gregorymalchuk272 Who says " An industrial civilization can't prosper using electricity? It's far more efficient. New & used ICE sales are flopping while EV sales continue to increase. The world obviously want EVs.
The problem with hybrids is that when you’re on electric mode you are lugging around an engine and when your engine running gas you’re lugging around a large extra battery mass i think electric is the way to go but completely depends on your lifestyle access to charging both at home and for traveling to a charging network otherwise a hybrid is a great solution as it does improve your gas mileage
28:04,17:55 "Inflation Reduction" Act: Reduce inflation by "investing" even more printed dollars in subsidy funds for commercially (still) unviable ideological projects; anothet wealth transfer scheme and another millstone around the necks of we the people.
Two factors: distance/energy (MPG or miles/kwh) and CO2 in fuel vs grid (grams CO2/kwh) will determine if EVs or combustion win. Answer below... RE fuel is 100 times less CO2 than gasoline (key). Battery = gasoline in CO2/kwh = 100% RE grid = 300 gCO2/kwh Coal grid is 1020 gCO2/kwh Old ICE is 15% efficient New ICE is 75% city EV is 85% Bat to wheel EV inverter is 85% plug to bat Do the math: CO2: EV on 100% RE = Battery + EV electricity from 100% RE grid = 300+ 300 = 600. At the wheel? 600/0.85/0.85= 830. On Coal? (300+1020)/0.85/0.85= = 1826 Old ICE = 300 gasoline/0.15 = 2000. Old ICE with RE fuel = 3/0.15= 20 New ICE = 300 gasoline/0.75 = 400. New ICE With RE fuel 3/0.75 = 4 End game is 830/4= 207 = ~200 times MORE CO2 for EV. Game over for EVs folks.
Kudos to Benji Backer! I'm no expert, but I've come to the conclusion that our only hope of avoiding climate disaster is a massive bet on nuclear power, advanced fission now, perhaps fusion eventually. Unlike Benji Backer, I don’t think it makes sense to double down on old, unsafe fission technology. We need to bet on new technology. Unfortunately, I see no real prospect of that happening in my lifetime. The proposal from Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island is a case in point. It depends upon restarting a Gen II PWR, which is inherently unsafe (duh), with a big public subsidy. That it's not at least a Gen III PWR tells you all you need to know.
As long as China is building coal power plants at a exponential rate with minimal emissions controls what America does is probably insignificant to the planet. Also India and other up and coming countries. I only wish they had emission standards to make these energy sources as clean as possible. It is the best time to be alive and electricity and power and vehicles and all these miraculous things are the reason why. We need to be the best stewards of the planet as possible while still enjoying these great blessings awarded us from God!!!
The current wars are causing huge damage to our environment. As for Nuclear, it’s one viable way to consider, except when a war causes a reactor attack and huge amounts of ionizing radiation contamination that spreads long distances and last for hundreds of years. Finally, in the US, do all middle class and wealthy people need to own three or four cars in their driveway?
To me this lady is living proof that the solution to this issue is to keep the freaking government out of the equation. A huge chunk of the so called transition is fueled by subsidies, once the subsidies dries the picture will change drastically. Let the market do its thing as freely as possible, innovation has been the answer to problems throughout humanity's history and will most likely be the answer once again. Government is a great killer of innovation when it tries to direct economy.
Government subsidized the railroads, highways, port facilities, air traffic, food inspection, agricultural research, power distribution, telegraph line, navigational aids etc.
@@chrisconklin2981Name the subsidies. Your claims of subsidies on fossil fuels are actually 90% "externalities" which are debatable and renewables don't pay for them either.
Besides passenger vehicles there is a growing truck market. There is a massive transition to delivery EVs that includes postal deliver, UPS, Fedx and Amazon. Also urban transit systems and school buses are making a rapid transition. When it comes to good for the environment, not much is mentioned that in general EVs produce less air pollution. EVs can be charge using local solar panels, thus reducing centralized fossil fuel generation. In the long term the power grid is decentralizing and will produce significant amounts of electricity at the local level. EVs batteries could be backup for buildings and can also add to or take from the electrical grid. Extensive battery storage will help balance electrical load.
14:50 Ok so you both agree, then where is the real opposition? This is hardly a debate Steamboat Institute this is just two wolves slaughtering the sheep. Where is Steve Koonin?
11:47 There it is. She is one of the only 25% of adult Americans who have a house and driveway giving them the means to charge their EV daily overnight and cheaply. Of course its great for her, but for the remaining 75% of Americans, not so much.
It took a hundred years to have gas stations on every corner. Give it a chance. Inexpensive EVs will have a 400 mile range and will charge in 10 minutes. For curbside parking, my Jetson idea is robot trucks that at night charge your EV.
Apartments & condos are starting to have chargers installed but will continue. Malls and work places will also soon keep up and install chargers to keep customers & employees.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa yeah agree, although cars shouldn't be banned in cities as needs vary greatly, cities present one of the best case uses for public transport due to density - however cities are also where EVs have the biggest benefit since EVs are most efficent compared to other methods of propulsion at stop-start traffic and lower speeds, and again, density can affect localised air pollution. On the other hand, cities are where you find the least space available for long term - that is both residential and roadside parking for charging EVs (because youd be a fool to think we can support high wattage/fast chargers everywhere in cities and keep electricity affordable and have that happen soon to make mass EV adoption viable). The paradox of EVs is that need to completely overhaul our nations civic infrastructure to accomodate mass adoption, something that will be extremely resource intensive, expensive, possibly disruptive and will destroy environments.. Whereas for comparatively little public cost, no disruption and very little cost to the environment and climate we can continue making more efficent engines and hybrids which happily work with the century legacy of road networks we have already invested in and built up. EVs just aren't there yet... And in their current incarnation they arent even suitable if they could be mass adopted.
By the time you include the climate carbon impact from forest fires and from factories and the environmental damage from mining for EV automotive units you have omitted the most significant issues. The mix concept is viable. However, by the time all this advise given here, AI will have grown to the point of human life destruction.
Love the U.S they live in their own bubble,Diesel sales in Australia and Britain are out performing Pure EV sales.Hybrids are also out stripping pure EV sales on 2024
Here's my anti Hybrid rant: Ya have a relatively 'tiny' engine to charge a battery which runs a powerful elec motor. Fine. But after a few miles(30?), poor little engine tries to recharge battery and also, struggles up to freeway speeds and stay there. Re-generative braking which re-charges battery is fantastic if you're Rallycross driving. But pensioners don't speed and brake that often (also, very few steep hills in Denmark). Hybrid isn't cheap, it's also a dying fad (says The Economist mag). And plug-in hybrid is just an extra household headache. All this, to get with the mass hysteria program.
@@maxbrooks1191 Same big diesel for 21 years. It eats hybrids for lunch. Replacement petrol one would fit in the old trunk. Taxi and Uber rides reveal just as expected of hybrids. Thanks anyway.
Here's my anti Hybrid rant: Ya have a relatively 'tiny' engine to charge a battery which runs a powerful elec motor. Fine. But after a few miles(30?), poor little engine tries to recharge battery and also, struggles up to freeway speeds and stay there. Re-generative braking which re-charges battery is fantastic if you're Rallycross driving. But pensioners don't speed and brake that often (also, very few steep hills in Denmark). Hybrid isn't cheap, it's also a dying fad (says The Economist mag). And plug-in hybrid is just an extra household headache. All this, to get with the mass hysteria program.
The global elite know this. A food shortage is a proven control mechanism. Next they will demonise methane to stop us eating meat. If you want to know what privileges they want to allow us download THE FUTURE OF URBAN COMSUMPTION IN A 1.5°C WORLD
What a load of bollox! They’ve no idea about life in the real world. She’s got solar panels to charge her EV (2 of) so how does she get out and about during the day? She certainly isn’t charging any EV during the night with a solar array; also she must have a massive array to charge up one EV never mind two of them!! EV’s are basically disposable vehicles unless you’ve got funds to replace the battery after 5-7yrs of everyday use. ICE vehicles can last twice that period; in fact we have two vehicles pushing 16 years old and are used daily so they’ve long passed the time to reach net zero from their manufactured dates. If you want to spend your hard earned cash on an EV work away just don’t cry when you have to change it after 3-4 years or find the warranty has finished and you’re facing a 40-50K cost to replace a battery…..or it just bursts into flames!
False debate as both accept the premise of dominance of anthropogenic climate change. So both are natural climate change deniers. She talked down to everyone using call to authority. The 50k subsidies per car level was a shocking revelation highlighting a terrible opportunity cost. would have liked to know how this was calculated.
EVs are a good idea implemented badly.. the only way they'll ever be practical is with exchangeable batteries that can be home charged or swapped (similarly to gas bottles)on longer trips. If that happened EVs sans batteries would be very affordable and battery technology could evolve separately. Unless a battery "swap and go" system is implemented we're in white elephant territory.
The fact that EVs have non replaceable and outrageously expensive to repair are another added admission that they are much more expensive and require outrageous proprietary parts and repairs to make the economics "work" for the manufacturers, even with the subsidies.
Ever heard of solid state batteries than have a 600+ mile range and can be recharged from 0% to 90% in less than 10 minutes? Samsung just had a huge breakthrough.
The only electric vehicles that have any positive effect on emissions of all kinds are trains light rail and trolley busses that are powered by over head wires. Virtue signalling machines that resemble automobiles are absolutely detrimental to the environment and on average do not pay back the emissions caused in their manufacture before they pass their useful life span of ten to fifteen years if they actually survive that long and have not become scrap due to minor damage to the battery case or burst into flames. The fact that EV's are improperly designed for the task of reducing emission , repair and recyclability and replacement of standardized battery packs proves that climate change is in fact a scam . Claiming that a gas that makes up less than half of one percent of the atmosphere can do anything other than make the warmth of a day last at most an hour longer in the desert before it become cold is on par with claiming that not believing in the tooth fairy will make your teeth fall out.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 . Not quite. While there are ICE vehicles that are excessive resource hogs they still pale in comparison to the waste of effort time and resources that is your average Virtue signalling machine. If you were to convert any existing ICE vehicle to run on natural gas not only would tail pipe emissions drop across the board but you would be using one of the most efficient fully renewable energy sources available to date. The carbon cost of an existing ICE vehicle has already been spent and replacing it with a new EV at nearly five times the carbon cost that it will probably never break even on is just stupid and definitely not going to ever achieve anything meaningful. So spending between three and seven thousand on conversion to CNG will not only reduce tailpipe emissions but it will save the tons of emissions of a burning EV.
You do not know what you are talking about. The battery from my 2013 Tesla has been re-purposed as home energy storage (about 28 kWh capacity) for the solar system on my roof. I power two EVs directly off of solar power and still send power back onto the grid. Have you ever owned an EV or even borrowed one for a week?
@@res_ipsa-REX Being the prime example virtue signalers doesn't prove your point. However when your home burns down due to the expired Tesla battery it will prove my point.
@@anomamos9095 Spreading fake FUD helps no one. Learns some facts, gain some knowledge about electrical engineering, and discover that being cautious about new tech is very different from being fearful of it. There is less of a risk of the battery on my garage's wall catching fire than a water heater fueled by natural gas. There is less of a risk of the battery on my garage's wall catching fire than an individual at a gas staion fueling their car and starting a static electricity fire.
lol horse and buggy sucks compared to car. no AC, you get wet when it rains. I'll bet a car lasts longer than horse and buggy. if you don't drive a car for 6 months you don't have to keep feeding a horse.
The electric car is dead, move on... Worse than dead it's in the bargain bin. Firstly it was never a form of transport (even the horse could eat anywhere) The prices of recharge had become exorbitant (when you could find one). It produces more environmental harm than at least 50% of conventional cars, more toxins, more co2. Arguably the one thing it did was move the pollution out of the city slightly . Yes its complicated but electricity can be 8 times more polluting than petrol, and at the same time if everyone went electric we would need many more times current production capacity.
True, we will burn as much fossil ressources as we can as long as we can and shite on the future of our kids. They are NOT important. WE are important!
Plant more trees that are act as an important carbon sink and reduce clear cutting of our forests. Reduce cattle consumption as stool methane is a significant climate change impact gas. It’s great to see that people are discussing this very challenging topic.
I've studied this issue very carefully for 4.5 years, and have followed the car industry and EV industry for 35 and 20 years respectively. The embodied CO2e emissions from the production of any full sized modern car/SUV/pickup, ICE or EV is too high to continue with our necessary zero carbon emissions goals. Auto manufacturers, science, and policy makers have underestimated production emissions and the critical problem that an auto industry won't fit in zero emissions world. Instead, we have assumed that any decrease from our high emissions cars is a good thing. The transformatiin from ICE to EV is difficult and some would argue the transition away from cars completely is umpossible for us to envision. But the physics of Climate Crisis doesn't care about what we can envision. Cars will not work. Their production and operation require too many resources and too much energy. Our painfully slow decarbonization of industrial production and electricity are not happening fast enough. Instead of propping up an insufficient, unsustainable EV industry, we need to be honest with ourselves that electrified pantograph rail (trams, light rail, metros, heavy rail, high speed rail) and micromobility (bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, neighborhood electric vehicles, microcars) will be our sustainable methods of transport.
Your solutions are great for certain use cases, but for other use cases not so much, which is why passenger cars and light trucks are so popular, We won't be able to avoid climate disaster unless we can find attractive solutions. If we try to force people into solutions they don't like, the backlash will destroy us. So put your thinking cap back on and figure out solutions that people actually want.
Lets be very clear. The planet does not care.
@@ye333 But what about Gaia?
What's wrong with putting an agenda in an anthropomorphized abstraction so it cannot be falsified? Oh wait..
This is refreshing to hear a conservative not promote all the lies of EV’s, but have a rational objective view on the matter. EV’s are part of the answer to cleaner energy consumption already, imagine second and third generation EV’s. They’ll be light years ahead of ICE counterparts.
Biggest takeaways:
1. Lifetime CO2 EV emissions when compared to their ICE counterparts are less than half.
2. US switching to EV’s won’t put a dent in the “climate change” equation. Which is why the reason for the switch should be superior technology first, then reduced pollution second. If EV’s can become cheaper and more convenient, they’ll take off. That day is coming soon.
3. Tesla Model Y is the world’s best selling car right now.
4. You can be for EV’s and conservative. Big shock there.
5. Electric air taxis are a topic these folks should research. That may be the future too. #lilliumjet
@@timmyj2366 I think you miss a huge win for a much smaller fail here. Forget CO2 emissions, as you said EVs make next to no difference in the grand scheme of things and it's not even clear more CO2 is bad.
Local pollution reduction in population dense areas however is a huge win, where pollution reduction by way of EV and hybrid car use can be exported to gas/coal plants (and renewable where applicable) far from population centers, and whose pollution tends to be much more widespread and dispersed (high altitude) than the highly localized and concentrated pollution from tailpipe emissions. From a govt perspective, electricity generation can be regulated easier than millions of cars.
Edit: and EVs are better in traffic efficency wise. Forget targets, forget subsidies, imo if govt wants bang for buck, focus on charging infrastructure in population centers AND cheap electricity. That means continuing gas etc because expensive electricity is the biggest (and will be) ultimate deterrent for adopters, even over charge times.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooo.
The first speaker said that cars and trucks create the largest part of transport emissions in the US. That’s true. They make up about 57%. Transport itself, makes up 28% of total US emissions. The USA overall, contributes about 16% of global emissions. Therefore, cars and truck in the US, make up 57% of 28% of 16% of global emissions. That amounts to about 0.0255% of the global total.
The correct answer is 2.6%
Wrong. Its 2.6%.
0.57 x 0.28 x 0.16 = 0.025536
Even if it was 2.6 % it would still be irrelevant.
@@andrewnelson3681 It's not 2.6%, because climate is global. Taking your numbers at face value, the relevant percentage is 57% x 28% = 16%. If EV could even just save a bit more than half of that, it would be a global carbon savings of 10%, a big deal indeed.
I'm guessing that Benji did his roadtrip during spring or summer months 🤷♀️
I'll try to make this brief, I had to make an emergency flight to Denver last January and need to use a "ride" service from the airport, I dressed as best I could with clothes I had considering I live near Phoenix Arizona!! When I landed it was 0°F (-17 C) ZERO!
And I was sent a Tesla. The airport is Not well heated, my driver was on the other side of the terminal,,,,,,, by the time I got into that car I was CHILLED TO THE BONE!
10 minutes or so into my 40 min ride, I commented what a hard time I was having getting warm! My hands and arms were still frozen, and my face, the driver said he'd turn up the heat, moments later, I just and exclaimed "I Feel Like My
A$$ IS ON FIRE!"
He apologized and explained that only the SEAT HEATER WAS ON! Because the cabin heater was to draining on the batteries!
That was THE MOST MISERABLE 40 MINUTES OF MY LIFE!!
You're blaming the car for the driver's failure to recharge it.
@@JNavas2
It could have had a full charge before he left wherever 🤷♀️
Everyone knows that temps that cold means extended charge times and reduced range.
I don't care what the reason was the heat wasn't available when needed, life at times, is unpredictable, I don't want to have to figure out what features I cab use and what I can't.
That's outside of finding a charging station, charge time,(If chargers are work) fees, in network out of network, buying tires more often and 50% higher insurance!
Nope, I'll keep the 2 I have( Mini & 40ft Class A) I'm perfectly happy with those😁
@@janiceperkins4340
Sure, go with what works best for you, just as I do.
And don't blame your ICE vehicle when you run out of gas. 😉
My next vehicle might just be a plug-in hybrid.
Let's not forget geo thermal, furvos and other fraking based geo thermal soultions can also be used and thanks to oil inducstry we can do it today because of fraking. I don't understand when he said battery storage is not there when there are facilites today using that technology.
Love the fact this is a fairly civil discussion. Some of the gentleman's facts are off. One thing we forget that fossil fuel have had high subsidies for 100's of years. Also minerals taken out of the ground are mined once where as fossil fuels are pulled from the ground (mined) continuously, burned and not recyclable. Also the data shows even a EV powered by coal, the electricity produces less CO, than an ICE burning fuel. The legacy auto need to make money so of course the backed off, they sell ICE that is where they make money today. But some will be more ready than others GM, appears ready. Ford backed off and Stelantis was way off. Toyota is not an advocate of EV and nor should they be if there primary investment was Hybrids and Hydrogen. As for affecting groups, there are arguements, but doing nothing is not an option if we want to help our kids futures. Enjoyed this debate.
When she says EV are the biggest emission reduction bang for your buck. That simply isn't true.
For the same money you can buy a hybrid and solar.
So you have the benefit of fuel savings in the car and energy savings at home.
And also not have the problems associated with pure ev.
And also have far less emissions than owning just an EV.
Hybrids, aside from range extenders, are a continuation of the more complexity the better , design to fail ICE scam .
@@GWAForUTBE
Yes because Toyota hybrids have proven be to be very unreliable .
But this is about "saving the planet" so if more complexity (even though it's not) is better for the planet, then that's the best option otherwise the argument every uses why we need to transition to inferior EVs is wrong.
@@GWAForUTBE We want internal combustion engines. Industrial civilization isn't possible without them. Improvements in electric motors, batteries, and electronics also increase the viability of ICE in hybrid drive trains.
@gregorymalchuk272 Who says " An industrial civilization can't prosper using electricity? It's far more efficient. New & used ICE sales are flopping while EV sales continue to increase. The world obviously want EVs.
A hybrid emits the same amount of poison on the air. Or do you think they all smell of lilacs?
The problem with hybrids is that when you’re on electric mode you are lugging around an engine and when your engine running gas you’re lugging around a large extra battery mass i think electric is the way to go but completely depends on your lifestyle access to charging both at home and for traveling to a charging network otherwise a hybrid is a great solution as it does improve your gas mileage
28:04,17:55 "Inflation Reduction" Act: Reduce inflation by "investing" even more printed dollars in subsidy funds for commercially (still) unviable ideological projects; anothet wealth transfer scheme and another millstone around the necks of we the people.
"We decide the fait of our planet for millennia to come..." OMG, that is pure propaganda. Benji Backer, great argument.
Are you aware of the significant health hazards of smoke exposure from lithium ion battery fires?
Oh my God., there are still people who question this.
There is no noise pollution and no exhaust fumes just 2 meters from the house.
Two factors: distance/energy (MPG or miles/kwh) and CO2 in fuel vs grid (grams CO2/kwh) will determine if EVs or combustion win. Answer below...
RE fuel is 100 times less CO2 than gasoline (key).
Battery = gasoline in CO2/kwh = 100% RE grid = 300 gCO2/kwh
Coal grid is 1020 gCO2/kwh
Old ICE is 15% efficient
New ICE is 75% city
EV is 85% Bat to wheel
EV inverter is 85% plug to bat
Do the math:
CO2:
EV on 100% RE = Battery + EV electricity from 100% RE grid = 300+ 300 = 600. At the wheel? 600/0.85/0.85= 830. On Coal? (300+1020)/0.85/0.85= = 1826
Old ICE = 300 gasoline/0.15 = 2000. Old ICE with RE fuel = 3/0.15= 20
New ICE = 300 gasoline/0.75 = 400. New ICE With RE fuel 3/0.75 = 4
End game is 830/4= 207 = ~200 times MORE CO2 for EV. Game over for EVs folks.
Kudos to Benji Backer!
I'm no expert, but I've come to the conclusion that our only hope of avoiding climate disaster is a massive bet on nuclear power, advanced fission now, perhaps fusion eventually. Unlike Benji Backer, I don’t think it makes sense to double down on old, unsafe fission technology. We need to bet on new technology. Unfortunately, I see no real prospect of that happening in my lifetime.
The proposal from Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island is a case in point. It depends upon restarting a Gen II PWR, which is inherently unsafe (duh), with a big public subsidy. That it's not at least a Gen III PWR tells you all you need to know.
NIMBY is big problem. 5 years of lawsuits in court
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa
Yes, NIMBY is a big problem. We need a shot clock on new energy projects.
Nuclear is far too wasteful. Fusion. Great if it ever works.
Garbage incinerators/ steam electricity.
Climate disaster lmao. It's called weather.
Fission is literally the single safest energy converter technology humanity has ever invented.
Benji should consider that at night yhere is unused wasted power in the grid. That is why it is so cheap. No need to charge when sun shining.
As long as China is building coal power plants at a exponential rate with minimal emissions controls what America does is probably insignificant to the planet. Also India and other up and coming countries. I only wish they had emission standards to make these energy sources as clean as possible. It is the best time to be alive and electricity and power and vehicles and all these miraculous things are the reason why. We need to be the best stewards of the planet as possible while still enjoying these great blessings awarded us from God!!!
The current wars are causing huge damage to our environment. As for Nuclear, it’s one viable way to consider, except when a war causes a reactor attack and huge amounts of ionizing radiation contamination that spreads long distances and last for hundreds of years. Finally, in the US, do all middle class and wealthy people need to own three or four cars in their driveway?
To me this lady is living proof that the solution to this issue is to keep the freaking government out of the equation. A huge chunk of the so called transition is fueled by subsidies, once the subsidies dries the picture will change drastically. Let the market do its thing as freely as possible, innovation has been the answer to problems throughout humanity's history and will most likely be the answer once again. Government is a great killer of innovation when it tries to direct economy.
Government subsidized the railroads, highways, port facilities, air traffic, food inspection, agricultural research, power distribution, telegraph line, navigational aids etc.
@@chrisconklin2981Name the subsidies. Your claims of subsidies on fossil fuels are actually 90% "externalities" which are debatable and renewables don't pay for them either.
Read the book Nexus.
Besides passenger vehicles there is a growing truck market. There is a massive transition to delivery EVs that includes postal deliver, UPS, Fedx and Amazon. Also urban transit systems and school buses are making a rapid transition.
When it comes to good for the environment, not much is mentioned that in general EVs produce less air pollution. EVs can be charge using local solar panels, thus reducing centralized fossil fuel generation. In the long term the power grid is decentralizing and will produce significant amounts of electricity at the local level. EVs batteries could be backup for buildings and can also add to or take from the electrical grid. Extensive battery storage will help balance electrical load.
14:50 Ok so you both agree, then where is the real opposition? This is hardly a debate Steamboat Institute this is just two wolves slaughtering the sheep. Where is Steve Koonin?
11:47 There it is. She is one of the only 25% of adult Americans who have a house and driveway giving them the means to charge their EV daily overnight and cheaply. Of course its great for her, but for the remaining 75% of Americans, not so much.
It took a hundred years to have gas stations on every corner. Give it a chance. Inexpensive EVs will have a 400 mile range and will charge in 10 minutes. For curbside parking, my Jetson idea is robot trucks that at night charge your EV.
If you live in the city center, it's better to use public transportation. Rather than getting stuck in the car traffic
Apartments & condos are starting to have chargers installed but will continue. Malls and work places will also soon keep up and install chargers to keep customers & employees.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa yeah agree, although cars shouldn't be banned in cities as needs vary greatly, cities present one of the best case uses for public transport due to density - however cities are also where EVs have the biggest benefit since EVs are most efficent compared to other methods of propulsion at stop-start traffic and lower speeds, and again, density can affect localised air pollution.
On the other hand, cities are where you find the least space available for long term - that is both residential and roadside parking for charging EVs (because youd be a fool to think we can support high wattage/fast chargers everywhere in cities and keep electricity affordable and have that happen soon to make mass EV adoption viable). The paradox of EVs is that need to completely overhaul our nations civic infrastructure to accomodate mass adoption, something that will be extremely resource intensive, expensive, possibly disruptive and will destroy environments.. Whereas for comparatively little public cost, no disruption and very little cost to the environment and climate we can continue making more efficent engines and hybrids which happily work with the century legacy of road networks we have already invested in and built up.
EVs just aren't there yet... And in their current incarnation they arent even suitable if they could be mass adopted.
She earned three kudo's (solar panels + 2 EVs) and is officially declared to be "a good person".😂
By the time you include the climate carbon impact from forest fires and from factories and the environmental damage from mining for EV automotive units you have omitted the most significant issues. The mix concept is viable. However, by the time all this advise given here, AI will have grown to the point of human life destruction.
Love the U.S they live in their own bubble,Diesel sales in Australia and Britain are out performing Pure EV sales.Hybrids are also out stripping pure EV sales on 2024
Norway leads the way with EV at 80% of passenger vehicle sales.
Ever heard of disruption and S-Curves? Lets talk again in 2030.
Here's my anti Hybrid rant: Ya have a relatively 'tiny' engine to charge a battery which runs a powerful elec motor. Fine. But after a few miles(30?), poor little engine tries to recharge battery and also, struggles up to freeway speeds and stay there.
Re-generative braking which re-charges battery is fantastic if you're Rallycross driving. But pensioners don't speed and brake that often (also, very few steep hills in Denmark).
Hybrid isn't cheap, it's also a dying fad (says The Economist mag). And plug-in hybrid is just an extra household headache. All this, to get with the mass hysteria program.
@@Mrbobinge Denmark isn't the world very very small in comparison,have you ever driven or owned a current hybrid doesn't sound like it.
@@maxbrooks1191 Same big diesel for 21 years. It eats hybrids for lunch. Replacement petrol one would fit in the old trunk. Taxi and Uber rides reveal just as expected of hybrids. Thanks anyway.
Here's my anti Hybrid rant: Ya have a relatively 'tiny' engine to charge a battery which runs a powerful elec motor. Fine. But after a few miles(30?), poor little engine tries to recharge battery and also, struggles up to freeway speeds and stay there.
Re-generative braking which re-charges battery is fantastic if you're Rallycross driving. But pensioners don't speed and brake that often (also, very few steep hills in Denmark).
Hybrid isn't cheap, it's also a dying fad (says The Economist mag). And plug-in hybrid is just an extra household headache. All this, to get with the mass hysteria program.
Again... WE NEED THE BLOODY CO2!!!
The global elite know this. A food shortage is a proven control mechanism. Next they will demonise methane to stop us eating meat. If you want to know what privileges they want to allow us download THE FUTURE OF URBAN COMSUMPTION IN A 1.5°C WORLD
What a load of bollox!
They’ve no idea about life in the real world. She’s got solar panels to charge her EV (2 of) so how does she get out and about during the day? She certainly isn’t charging any EV during the night with a solar array; also she must have a massive array to charge up one EV never mind two of them!!
EV’s are basically disposable vehicles unless you’ve got funds to replace the battery after 5-7yrs of everyday use.
ICE vehicles can last twice that period; in fact we have two vehicles pushing 16 years old and are used daily so they’ve long passed the time to reach net zero from their manufactured dates.
If you want to spend your hard earned cash on an EV work away just don’t cry when you have to change it after 3-4 years or find the warranty has finished and you’re facing a 40-50K cost to replace a battery…..or it just bursts into flames!
False debate as both accept the premise of dominance of anthropogenic climate change. So both are natural climate change deniers. She talked down to everyone using call to authority. The 50k subsidies per car level was a shocking revelation highlighting a terrible opportunity cost. would have liked to know how this was calculated.
EVs are a good idea implemented badly.. the only way they'll ever be practical is with exchangeable batteries that can be home charged or swapped (similarly to gas bottles)on longer trips. If that happened EVs sans batteries would be very affordable and battery technology could evolve separately. Unless a battery "swap and go" system is implemented we're in white elephant territory.
💯🎯
The fact that EVs have non replaceable and outrageously expensive to repair are another added admission that they are much more expensive and require outrageous proprietary parts and repairs to make the economics "work" for the manufacturers, even with the subsidies.
@@gregorymalchuk272 Wow... new technology is expensive. EVs are not the first engineered product to experience this... remember flat panel TVs??
Ever heard of solid state batteries than have a 600+ mile range and can be recharged from 0% to 90% in less than 10 minutes? Samsung just had a huge breakthrough.
@res_ipsa-REX have heard claims like that before quite often.. proof will be "in the pudding". Won't be holding my breath.
The only electric vehicles that have any positive effect on emissions of all kinds are trains light rail and trolley busses that are powered by over head wires.
Virtue signalling machines that resemble automobiles are absolutely detrimental to the environment and on average do not pay back the emissions caused in their manufacture before they pass their useful life span of ten to fifteen years if they actually survive that long and have not become scrap due to minor damage to the battery case or burst into flames.
The fact that EV's are improperly designed for the task of reducing emission , repair and recyclability and replacement of standardized battery packs proves that climate change is in fact a scam .
Claiming that a gas that makes up less than half of one percent of the atmosphere can do anything other than make the warmth of a day last at most an hour longer in the desert before it become cold is on par with claiming that not believing in the tooth fairy will make your teeth fall out.
Ok, so you say burning fossil ressources in 5000 lbs V8 coal rollers is better than NOT burning fossil ressources? Correct?
@@wolfgangpreier9160 . Not quite.
While there are ICE vehicles that are excessive resource hogs they still pale in comparison to the waste of effort time and resources that is your average Virtue signalling machine.
If you were to convert any existing ICE vehicle to run on natural gas not only would tail pipe emissions drop across the board but you would be using one of the most efficient fully renewable energy sources available to date.
The carbon cost of an existing ICE vehicle has already been spent and replacing it with a new EV at nearly five times the carbon cost that it will probably never break even on is just stupid and definitely not going to ever achieve anything meaningful.
So spending between three and seven thousand on conversion to CNG will not only reduce tailpipe emissions but it will save the tons of emissions of a burning EV.
You do not know what you are talking about. The battery from my 2013 Tesla has been re-purposed as home energy storage (about 28 kWh capacity) for the solar system on my roof. I power two EVs directly off of solar power and still send power back onto the grid. Have you ever owned an EV or even borrowed one for a week?
@@res_ipsa-REX Being the prime example virtue signalers doesn't prove your point.
However when your home burns down due to the expired Tesla battery it will prove my point.
@@anomamos9095 Spreading fake FUD helps no one. Learns some facts, gain some knowledge about electrical engineering, and discover that being cautious about new tech is very different from being fearful of it. There is less of a risk of the battery on my garage's wall catching fire than a water heater fueled by natural gas. There is less of a risk of the battery on my garage's wall catching fire than an individual at a gas staion fueling their car and starting a static electricity fire.
lol horse and buggy sucks compared to car. no AC, you get wet when it rains. I'll bet a car lasts longer than horse and buggy. if you don't drive a car for 6 months you don't have to keep feeding a horse.
The electric car is dead, move on... Worse than dead it's in the bargain bin. Firstly it was never a form of transport (even the horse could eat anywhere) The prices of recharge had become exorbitant (when you could find one). It produces more environmental harm than at least 50% of conventional cars, more toxins, more co2. Arguably the one thing it did was move the pollution out of the city slightly .
Yes its complicated but electricity can be 8 times more polluting than petrol, and at the same time if everyone went electric we would need many more times current production capacity.
True, we will burn as much fossil ressources as we can as long as we can and shite on the future of our kids.
They are NOT important.
WE are important!
Answer to the title... No.
Are they better than alternatives. Yes.
No. They're not.
Is global cooling a good thing!
Plant more trees that are act as an important carbon sink and reduce clear cutting of our forests. Reduce cattle consumption as stool methane is a significant climate change impact gas. It’s great to see that people are discussing this very challenging topic.
Methane does nothing to reduce CO2. CO2 is the bigger issue, not just global warming.
I've studied this issue very carefully for 4.5 years, and have followed the car industry and EV industry for 35 and 20 years respectively.
The embodied CO2e emissions from the production of any full sized modern car/SUV/pickup, ICE or EV is too high to continue with our necessary zero carbon emissions goals. Auto manufacturers, science, and policy makers have underestimated production emissions and the critical problem that an auto industry won't fit in zero emissions world. Instead, we have assumed that any decrease from our high emissions cars is a good thing.
The transformatiin from ICE to EV is difficult and some would argue the transition away from cars completely is umpossible for us to envision. But the physics of Climate Crisis doesn't care about what we can envision. Cars will not work. Their production and operation require too many resources and too much energy. Our painfully slow decarbonization of industrial production and electricity are not happening fast enough.
Instead of propping up an insufficient, unsustainable EV industry, we need to be honest with ourselves that electrified pantograph rail (trams, light rail, metros, heavy rail, high speed rail) and micromobility (bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, neighborhood electric vehicles, microcars) will be our sustainable methods of transport.
Your solutions are great for certain use cases, but for other use cases not so much, which is why passenger cars and light trucks are so popular, We won't be able to avoid climate disaster unless we can find attractive solutions. If we try to force people into solutions they don't like, the backlash will destroy us. So put your thinking cap back on and figure out solutions that people actually want.
A load of bollocks