Apparently fossil fuel cars make ‘hundreds of times’ more waste than electric cars

It seems obvious. Into one car you simply put electrons, into the other car you pump as much as 50kg of fuel, which uses more resources?

How anyone can compare the 30kg or so lost at the end of an electric cars life, to the 50kg or so that the average combustion car burns each week, is baffling

Over the lifetime of an electric car, roughly 30kg of raw material will be used. A combustion engine car will use 17,000 litres of oil.

Continue reading “Apparently fossil fuel cars make ‘hundreds of times’ more waste than electric cars”

Fossil fuel cars make ‘hundreds of times’ more waste than electric cars – according to a Guardian article, despite what most media tries to claim

This should not be news to people, but because of the rubbish that is spread by many with vested interests in the current situation, it needs to be dealt with again.

So the argument is that because electric cars battery does not last forever, but every part of the combustion engine car does, the electric car is going to make more waste.

Continue reading “Fossil fuel cars make ‘hundreds of times’ more waste than electric cars – according to a Guardian article, despite what most media tries to claim”

Another foolish article about the superiority of ICE vehicles over Electric

The horrific traffic catastrophe in Virginia in the ice has lead to another foolish article about the supremacy of ICE over electric.

I havent heard of the author Charles Lane but the article is similar to dozens I have read in the past “here is an anecdotal situation that occurred to me, doesnt it show how electric cars are rubbish”.

Vehicles are seen on an icy stretch of Interstate 95 closed as a storm blankets the U.S. region in snow. Are you really better in an ICE vehicle than an electric?

In this situation a 48 mile traffic jam appeared on the interstate 95 in Virginia. A trucker found his cab door being knocked on by a woman who was in an electric car and hadnt enough food or water. They were worried about running out of charge while trying to keep their vehicle warm. With kids in the car they had got out to ask other vehicle drivers for blankets or anything else (outside temperatures were minus 7 degrees).

So why was this a foolish article to write? Essentially the lorry driver is saying, look at this situation where ICE cars were better than electric, therefore no-one should buy electric.

So lets look at this situation.

1 Given an electric car can be charged at home, and an ICE vehicle needs refilling at a fuel station, which is most likely to be near full of fuel in an emergency? Many people do a small top-up every night so keep their car at around 85% permanently, except when going on a long journey. Generally people only refill their tank when it is nearing empty.

2 Electric cars are almost 100% efficient with a heat pump as many of these cars use. A tesla 3 heat pump could keep its inhabitants warm for 36 hours on a full charge. In an ICE car it would entirely depend on how recently it was refilled- depending on the size and efficiency idling fuel usage can be anything from 1 litre an hour in a small car, up to as much as 5 or more in a big car (or a sports car like a dodge viper). A Hyundai Kona uses about 1 litre an hour and has a tank of 38 litres, so would last about a day and a half. Even in big cars the fuel tank is not normally bigger than 70 litres, which would suggest 14 hours,

As such, in actual fact the odds of running out of fuel (charge or gas) in a sticky situation is likely to be far higher in an ICE vehicle. Once in the situation, unless you are in the right car for this rare situation, electric is far more likely to safely keep you warm till the road clears.

Now it is true that should your electric car drain completely to zero, it is more bother to recharge an electric car than it is an ICE vehicle, as the latter merely needs a walk to the nearest petrol station. Why do so many writers grab every chance to take a swipe at electric? Probably because they know that they will be paid well – however as these stories start to look more and more stupid, I think it is going to be harder to find someone to write your hit piece.

Do not be mislead, an electric car always has lower emissions than an equivalent combustion engine car

There is a constant argument made by those who like the combustion engine car. They want to add up all the emissions that are released creating the electricity and therefore suggest that the electric car is worse.

This shows that the BMW 3 and tesla 3 are similar sizes, though electric cars tend to be bigger inside

This argument quickly runs into problems: an electric car is so much more efficient that it is irrelavent.

Continue reading “Do not be mislead, an electric car always has lower emissions than an equivalent combustion engine car”

Chevron and Exxon both spent years supressing battery cars should they get away with that?

It has been recognised in many circles but fossil fuels have been a problem for a very long time. Generally the argument has gone, there is nothing that can replace them.

What should we do about companies who were pushing the idea that was nothing to replace fossil fuels, while at the same time working to stop electric cars ever coming to market?

Some people might argue that in a free market society, you can do nothing. That has to be wrong. Exxon bought the lithium ion battery patent back in 1966, and then completely suppressed it -this is why the Sony Walkman only arrived in 1991, precisely 25 years after the patent was given when it expired. Chevron Texaco did something similar in 1999, when they bought the right to certain battery chemistry, and a particular type of battery plug in the hope of stopping that technology ever coming to market in the form of a battery for a car.

Car and fossil fuel companies cannot be allowed to get away with this. Indeed it has to be illegal.

Indeed if it isn’t, the free market system must change otherwise these companies will have the ability to make the fight against climate change that much harder.

There needs to be a way to inflict significant damage on a company which intentionally fights against the long-term human interests in order to maximize short term profits. Perhaps the only way to handle this is to fine the share holders? If the share holders know that they are going to be financially liable for any bad behaviour, this will force the value of the company down when ever they misbehave.

See Animals Wild