Of course, since the majority who buy EVs make $150k to $300K a year, it doesn’t really bother them. The real rich folks buy super expensive EVs for street cred. The working and middle classes? Yeah, it’ll
Running an electric car is twice as expensive as a petrol one
Electric cars are up to twice as expensive as petrol or diesel vehicles to run, new figures have suggested.
Running an electric vehicle (EV) can cost more than 24p per mile, while a diesel vehicle is 12.5p.
It costs as much as 80p per kilowatt hour to charge an EV using a rapid or ultra-rapid device on the roadside, according to data from the app ZapMap.
A typical electric car will travel 3.3 miles for every kWh of electricity used, meaning rapid and ultra-rapid chargers currently cost the equivalent of 24.1p per mile, calculations by The Times suggest.
Slower chargers cost 16.4p per mile.
This is around double the average diesel car, which will do 43 miles per gallon, resulting in a cost of 12.5p per mile at current prices. A typical petrol car costs 14.5p per mile, according to the analysis.
Huh. Yet, the Elites in the UK are working to force all the peasants into EVs, while, can you find the aristocracy traveling in EVs in photos or video, other than for photo-ops? Anyhow, the article does point out that charging at home is less expensive than gas, which is true. But, a generous study says 43% of Brits would not be able to charge at home, and, that percent could be much higher. And many of those would could charge at home do not have the ability to do more than Level 1, which can take days to charge
ZapMap found that prices at rapid chargers have increased 5 per cent over the past year, despite a 30 per cent decrease in the wholesale cost of electricity.
Huh. That’s weird.
Thom Groot, founder of the Electric Car Scheme, said: “We need to keep stimulating demand with incentives and supporting consumers in making the switch. The fact that people who charge at home pay less VAT than those who use public chargers is unfair.”
In other words, they really cannot survive without massive government help. So, scheme is a good word.
The comparison was with EVs using ultra-rapid roadside chargers vs diesel autos.
Not stacking the deck were they, LOL?
Mr Teach counts on you just reading just the “headline”.
Total lie. I have three EVs and I can guarantee assure you that my operating maintenance costs have been ZERO with the exception of the one set of replacement tires at 35,000 miles.
Hans
Replacement tires are not “ZERO”.
Ever see the fine print “Your mileage may vary”? It means that your particular experience may not reflect the average or the general community. I am guessing, because you didn’t say, but if you have three cars, logically, you split the miles driven between them so naturally, some would experience more wear than others.
Obviously, people should just be plugging their cars in at work and places where the electricity is free.
The negatives associated with an EV far outweigh a very few pluses. I could list them all, there are dozens, but why? The EV crazies will do what they want to do no matter the evidence to the contrary. However, I pray that billions and billions of dollars are lost by the automotive industry making these environmental disasters!
*BOOM* Trump gets amazing Virginia poll, is it a swing state?? – Video
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2024/09/boom-trump-gets-amazing-virginia-poll.html
As usual, facts carefully cherrypicked to fit a narrative.
When will we ever get the adults to the table to discuss this realistically with REAL numbers that are more standard and not fringes to throw one side or another at you?
Your diesel is twice as much if you goto a full service station too, or one near an airport, or or or. but no let’s just manip the numbers to say what you need them to say.
Your beer and cigarettes are cheaper at the volume store too, they are VERY expensive at the CONVENIENCE STORE !!! So, don’t you think that a ‘convenience charger’ is going to be more expensive too? Oh wait, that doesn’t fit the narrative, this post will be pulled.
Ouch…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/20/ev-sales-collapse-in-germany/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/19/china-bans-electric-vehicles-from-underground-carparks/
Massive holes in the earth so as to make EVs, wildlife slaughtering windmills, non-disposable solar panels, or anything “green” is not worth it. Plus, with the ubiquitous government grift, one wonders how the deranged narcissist in EVs live with themselves!
SUBJECT: BATTERIES
Tesla said it best when they called it an Energy Storage System. That’s important.They do not make electricity– they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, diesel-fueled generators or minerals. So, to say an Electric Vehicle (EV) is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.
Also, since twenty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fire plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see? If not, read on.
Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc. Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two
battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash,
here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity.
As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes
rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do
not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and the green revolution look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive embedded costs.
Everything manufactured has two costs associated with it, embedded costs and operating costs. I will explain embedded costs using a can of baked beans as my subject. In this scenario, baked beans are on sale, so you jump in your car and head for the grocery store. Sure enough, there they are on the shelf for $1.75 a can. As you head to the checkout, you begin to think about the embedded costs in the can of beans.
The first cost is the diesel fuel the farmer used to plow the field, till the ground, harvest the beans, and transport them to the food processor. Not only is his diesel fuel an embedded cost, so are the costs to build the tractors, combines, and trucks. In addition, the farmer might use a nitrogen fertilizer made from natural gas.
Next is the energy costs of cooking the beans, heating the building, transporting the workers, and paying for the vast amounts of electricity used to run the plant. The steel can holding the beansis also an embedded cost. Making the steel can requires mining taconite, shipping it by boat, extracting the iron, placing it in a coal-fired blast furnace, and adding carbon. Then it’s back on another truck to take the beans to the grocery store. Finally, add in the cost of the gasoline for your car.
A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200
pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of orefor the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just one battery.”
Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?” And the Chinese just bought most of these mines!
California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intendto power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not! This construction project is creating an environmental disaster.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicone dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron,
24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects.
There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and
replacing them become apparent. “Going Green” may sound like the Utopian ideal and are easily espoused, catchy buzzwords, but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth’s environment than meets the eye, for sure.
Alas, why the AGW movement is the biggest scam on the planet? Ever.
Going green is designed to destroy the economies of the WEST so that China, Russia, and other bad actors have all the power and control of the world. THE AI tells me I should show the loss of power that going green would produce. AI is a classic example of how dumb the human race is becoming, allowing computers to do all our thinking for us.
It has been proven that Russia and Iran are heavily invested in PACs whose mission is to force GREEN on the West and to shame them into giving up real power for Green. Windmills don’t power weapons of war. Your tanks, planes, and aircraft carriers will be abandoned on great farms like all the old planes set in the desserts until they rust into oblivion.
YOU FIRST CHINA, RUSSIA, IRAN, N. KOREA, and I might be willing to follow YOUR lead. But I would never agree to lead the WEST down the path of societal suicide, hoping these countries altruistically give up their power as well for the good of the planet.
I do not oppose stewardship of the planet. It is a must, but I have posted before how egregiously destructive going green is for the earth and the economies of the countries that abandon fossil fuels for a trip down the GREEN Energy lane.