ADVERTISEMENT

Electric cars are stupid ..... here's why

Bells76

Letterman and National Champion
Sep 27, 2020
2,368
5,167
82
I have been needing to buy another vehicle because my 06 Accord just crossed 405k miles. She's about finished. Of course these e-cars have become an ever-increasing option, if you can find anything at all. As I see all this govt push to get us to go to e-cars, I can't help but laugh how stupid the greenies are.

Take a good look at batteries. Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, just the beginning of the stupidity.

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 types of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. They all contain toxic, heavy metals. Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, 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. 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 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 people excited about electric cars and a green revolution, take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share something called environmentally destructive production costs.

A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds. 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 ore for 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 these materials. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?

California has the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it's not. This construction project has created 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. Silicon 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.

Maybe there is a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. "Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is just as, if not more destructive to the Earth's environment than our current vehicles and practices.

Sooooooo......who is making money off this.
 
Last edited:
I have a 2019 Dodge Laramie, a 1969 Chevy C-10, the wife has a Toyota Camery.
I bought a 2014 Chevy Volt about 4~5 mo ago for 10K.
Getting around 120 mpg. Guess what I am driving?
So far, so good. Damn sure glad I got it. If it blows up, only paid 10K.
 
I have a 2019 Dodge Laramie, a 1969 Chevy C-10, the wife has a Toyota Camery.
I bought a 2014 Chevy Volt about 4~5 mo ago for 10K.
Getting around 120 mpg. Guess what I am driving?
So far, so good. Damn sure glad I got it. If it blows up, only paid 10K.
Mitch , the point Bells is making is that in the long run , batteries are not environmentally friendly . The cost to recharge the batteries is not done by other batteries , it has to be generated by coal , diesel , or gasoline ...so !
 
10-4
I just got mine to save on gas.
Yeah I get that and don’t blame you. I think the hybrids are not altogether a bad idea. But the people that buy these e cars for the sake of saving the planet are being taken advantage of. The govt wouldn’t be pushing this if somewhere up the political chain, someone wasnt making money hand over fist.
 
Last edited:
Facts are racist.
Mitch , the point Bells is making is that in the long run , batteries are not environmentally friendly . The cost to recharge the batteries is not done by other batteries , it has to be generated by coal , diesel , or gasoline ...so !


The main thing it does is make the lefties feel good about themselves. The great climate czar john Lurch Kerry said himself that if the USA magically had zero emissions of carbon tomorrow, it would have virtually no effect on global warming.

 
Buy a diesel engine vehicle, no chance they quit producing diesel fuel with the trucking industry, ships, and railways in the USA transporting goods. My next truck/car is a diesel.
 
I have been needing to buy another vehicle because my 06 Accord just crossed 405k miles. She's about finished. Of course these e-cars have become an ever-increasing option, if you can find anything at all. As I see all this govt push to get us to go to e-cars, I can't help but laugh how stupid the greenies are.

Take a good look at batteries. Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, just the beginning of the stupidity.

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 types of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. They all contain toxic, heavy metals. Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, 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. 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 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 people excited about electric cars and a green revolution, take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share something called environmentally destructive production costs.

A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds. 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 ore for 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 these materials. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?

California has the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it's not. This construction project has created 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. Silicon 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.

Maybe there is a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. "Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is just as, if not more destructive to the Earth's environment than our current vehicles and practices.

Sooooooo......who is making money off this.
You just pointed out why electric cars can be pushed, you expect someone that would vote for a Democrat to read something intelligent. They believe Joe Nancy and AOC how could you expect reason to come from that brain dead process.
 
You just pointed out why electric cars can be pushed, you expect someone that would vote for a Democrat to read something intelligent. They believe Joe Nancy and AOC how could you expect reason to come from that brain dead process.
Yep^^
 
I have been needing to buy another vehicle because my 06 Accord just crossed 405k miles. She's about finished. Of course these e-cars have become an ever-increasing option, if you can find anything at all. As I see all this govt push to get us to go to e-cars, I can't help but laugh how stupid the greenies are.

Take a good look at batteries. Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, just the beginning of the stupidity.

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 types of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. They all contain toxic, heavy metals. Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, 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. 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 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 people excited about electric cars and a green revolution, take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share something called environmentally destructive production costs.

A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds. 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 ore for 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 these materials. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?

California has the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it's not. This construction project has created 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. Silicon 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.

Maybe there is a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. "Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is just as, if not more destructive to the Earth's environment than our current vehicles and practices.

Sooooooo......who is making money off this.
What about these “green” solar farms. Consuming thousands of acres of prime farmland. Or stripping every tree from forest to construct. Nothing about that is green. Ask the wildlife.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT