Off Topic: EV's and their impact...

Ottawa, Ontario
16 Lexus RX350
23 Kia Stinger GT Elite
Saw this post on another forum (Nissan) and thought it was worth copying here for all to read.

Very thought provoking.

"Some thoughts on the evolution of EVs, the future benefits, and the environment.

Generally, drivers seem to follow one of three groups. One group is wholeheartedly into electric vehicles. They help to keep companies like Tesla afloat, and hold the feet of car makers to the fire, demanding newer, larger range EVs. The largest group of car buyers, however, is still not interested or only slightly interested in EVs. Then there is a group that is silently growing - they are in favor of departure from petrol based travel, and they like the idea of much fewer moving parts requiring maintenance and repair. They are leaning, but have yet to be convinced and sold on the idea of actual EV ownership.

In Canada and Europe, however, things are a bit different. 50% of Canadian drivers say they are 'seriously' looking at an EV for their next car. Buyers of EVs in Canada are happy to wait 4-5 months for delivery and Quebec leads the way with over 40% of Canada's EV owners. In Europe, where petrol and even diesel were once desired, combo petrol/EVs are gaining in popularity each year as better choices become available.

EVs are great for reducing the need for petroleum, but are not quite as green as you may think (see the blurb at the end of this article). Their high cost and distrust by consumers has hindered the switch away from petrol cars. The US is attempting to entice more EV ownership through legislation. And that, mates, is how too many noble ideas go straight to hell in a runaway trolley.

A simple, graduating sales target that forces car makers to update, improve range and quality, while making EVs more affordable.
Well, turns out that isn't really what the lobbyists and lawmakers had in mind because they already have fingers in both EV and petrol pies.
Several US states now have ZEV mandates: By law, they must meet mandated Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) targets. What started as good intentions has become a rather complicated system. It would be very easy to mandate by number of EVs sold as part of a car maker's total sales, but we're dealing with lawmakers, lobbyists, and well ... idiots.

So, out of thin air, they made up a unit of measure called a 'credit'. I know, I know .... but common sense is not all that common these days, especially in government. One EV sold does not equal one credit (again, much too easy). Different kinds of EVs have different credit values. A 100% battery EV car provides more credits than an EV / petrol unit. Confused? Good, that was by design. AND, it gets worse still! The total combination of different types of EVs sold by any carmaker must also meet a required 'combined standard'. Beginning in 2018, plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) can only account for 43 percent of total credits earned, meaning at least 57 percent must originate from battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs). For example, an automaker selling 100,000 total cars will need at least 7,000 ZEV credits, with at least 4,000 coming from battery-electric or fuel cell vehicle sales.

However, this does not mean they*ll need to sell 7,000 electric cars and trucks to comply, as most ZEVs generate more than one credit per vehicle.

By now, you're thinking .... "What the bloody hell?". If anyone can take a simple, simple idea and turn it into confusing, twisted rubbish, it is lawmakers (that or the criminally insane).

Case in point: as if more complexity was even needed, some crook (also known as an elected official) came up with the concept of 'banking ZEV credits".

After meeting credit requirements, car makers can carry over excess credits from one year to the next ... OR ... they can buy and sell credits between each other similar to the games Wall Street banks play with each other.

Thanks to this banking idea, every car maker can legally meet regulatory standards whether they actually sell any EVs or not. The result of this chutes and ladders approach to fostering new EV improvements and lower emissions?

As of October 2019, every car maker has already 'banked' enough ZEV credits to comply with the current regulations and future increases through the year 2022, even if they sell NO new EVs between now and 2022. Thanks, Uncle Sam! The air feels cleaner already! Tesla, who makes 100% battery EVs with the highest credit values per car, puts many many times the credits needed each year in their ZEV bank - and have consistently sold what is politely called 'a large amount of ZEV credits' to traditional (non EV) car makers. So thanks to these new, strict regulations .... Tesla, the company doing the most to clean the air, now makes additional profit by helping everybody else continue to pollute it. And that, ladies and gents, is the power of legislation.

I, personally, am not a fan of EVs. What do I have against them? They must be charged using ..... electricity ... and how do we make electricity? .... nuff said.

So, unless you have a turbine wind farm in your garden, you have not solved the issues and eco damage associated with petroleum and coal.
Hydrogen and natural gas cells are already in use and it will take time, but fuel cells will cost much less to create and maintain than batteries.
Fuel cells are a greener, more permanent solution.

EV Vs Petrol:
EV battery pack production, depending on size, causes 20-70% more CO2 than petrol car production. Tesla, having the largest battery packs, causes the most CO2 on average while the Nissan Leaf, with a smaller battery (and less range) produces near the least CO2. A petrol powered vehicle continues to produce CO2 its whole life while a 30kw Leaf will offset the amount of CO2 caused by its manufacture within 2 years. Even a 100kw Tesla pays back it's CO2 expenditure in about 5 years. But ... that still leaves the CO2 cost and eco damage caused by the manufacture of electricity to keep them charged, so it's not a clean or green swap, but it is an improvement.

Lithium mining and damage to ecosystems:
Lithium makes up only 5-7% of an EV battery. The remainder is nickel, cobalt, and other recyclable products. Lithium is extracted from the world's most desolate, non-living areas like the Atacama desert in Chile (the driest desert on Earth) - It has been devoid of plant or animal life for thousands of years. Petroleum, however is drilled in highly populated, fragile areas like the oceans and your hometown.

Waste created by old EV batteries:
Unlike 10 years ago, they can be refurbished and reused, or even re-tooled for uses that continue to provide benefits. Consider Japan, where they are broken down into small units to power street lights and are recharged using solar, removing the expense and eco-damage of electric powered lamps. Nissan is already recycling old EV batteries for the copper, aluminum, and plastic parts - and they are recovering the cobalt, nickel, and lithium mixtures to manufacture new battery cells to reduce mining. Unfortunately, all of this recycling can sometimes cost more than simply building a new battery, but as more EVs take to the road, these costs will decrease as will the cost of actually buying / owning an EV. As with all new tech, time and scale will become the great equalizer, but until we come up with a better way to create the electricity needed for EVs, the eco damage caused by petroleum and coal will continue."

Cheers, from the Buzzman.
great post. yeah, everyone seems to glaze over the fact that affordable electric is produced how? Two words...Chinese, batteries. Battery fires are no joke. Until that little problem is mitigated, like the days of the exploding Pintos and Pony cars, I'm out. More nuff said.