ev's are they clean?

You may not have a choice if all car manufacturers reconstruct their production lines to comply with global sales.

 

He waited until Joe Biden was in office, because it makes sense to invade when the leadership of your enemy is incompetent and weak.

Joe Biden amply demonstrated the incompetence and weakness of his leadership during the Afghanistan debacle.

Have you forgotten about the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal?

I haven't.

 

that will be aways in the future, but at that time, I would make the switch

the gas cars had early adopters too, some waited

 

The one Trump planned?
Nope.
TBH I have no yeas about Biden because he hasn't been in office long enough.
Trump however is another thing.
And finally the assessment isn't an either/or decision

Each has different issues one can assess independently of the other.

 

Nope.

Joe changed Trump's plan.

Biden to Withdraw Combat Troops From Afghanistan by Sept. 11
https://www.nytimes.com › U.S. › Politics
Jul 24, 2021 — After years of arguing against an extended military presence in Afghanistan, President Biden is doing things his way, with the deadline for ...

He broke it, he bought it.

 

You completely missed the point. Take the total energy we get from petroleum. Then look at how many nuclear power plants it would take to replace that energy. It isn't possible! We could never build enough nuclear power plants.

 

This isn't a learning curve. It is all predictable using, you know, math.

If everyone was driving an EV the grid would fail. Beyond that, most electric cars are actually powered by fossil fuels.

 

Evs don't eliminate the need for fossil fuels. They get their energy from fossil fuels through generators used to produce electrical power, rather than burning the fuels directly. But the generators are still producing CO2 to produce power. They are still burning coal or diesel or natural gas. And then we still have all of those highly toxic batteries.

 

The best immediate solutions are alternative fuels. Algae or bacteria can be grown and used to produce fuels that are carbon neutral. They do not produce any "new" carbon. They only release the carbon absorbed from the atmosphere in order for the organism to grow. And these fuels can be used by conventional cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes. And the existing energy infrastructure can be used. This means that a total conversion to carbon neutral fuels can be achieved quickly and relatively inexpensively.

 

So we can build enough of other plants to satisfy the needs, but not nuclear?

 

Yes, nuclear power plants are so expensive that no banks will fund them. They are socialized power. Only governments can fund them. Next, they take many years to build - often decades. And no one wants them in their backyard. So you would never find a place to put them. They would have to be everywhere, which will never happen due to zoning laws and the need for homes. You can't build homes for many miles around a nuclear plant. And the biggest killer is that it would take longer to build enough of them than the first ones built would last.

Nuclear power has always been over sold. Originally it was claimed that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter". They would give it away. But in fact it has never even been able to beat the cost of coal power. And then they lie about the real cost. The cost of decommissioning spent nuclear plants can be far more expensive than it was to build them!

We don't make other plants that create energy like nuclear power. It isn't like building a gas- or coal- powered plant. But more importantly, we don't try to power all the cars with power from power plants. THAT is the biggest difference. You are talking about eliminating petroleum and replacing that with nuclear. That is a much different problem than just switching all electrical power to nuclear power.

 

In the US we use about 7.22 billion barrels of petroleum per year. And each barrel has about 1700 KWHrs of energy.

That is about 12 quadrillion watt-hours of electrical energy per year in addition to all of the electrical energy we use already.

 

In 2021, about 4,116 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or about 4.12 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3#:~:text=In 2021, about 4,116 billion,facilities in the United States.

4 trillion kWH is 4 quadrillion watt-hours. So we would need to produce about 4 times that amount of electrical power to replace all gas and diesel with electric. And there is no practical electric plane even in theory.

These are all approximations but at least gives the order of magnitude of the problem.

 

Oddly enough, just yesterday I saw a story comparing the operating costs of gas and electric vehicles. The cost of getting gas or charging the cars are about equal and each could fluctuate with market conditions. Gas cars require more maintaining compared to evs, but that’s about the only real disadvantage.

electric cars are expensive, take a long time to charge, have limited range, have limited places to charge them, often need an electrician to install a charging station at your house, and are incredibly expensive to repair when they break down and not many places know how to service and repair them. About the only thing they’re good for is for local driving, like to the store and back. Think about those retirement communities where golf carts are often used, same mindset.

 

You are describing the EV's of five years ago.
A great many improvements have been made since and are still being made. It seems a shame the oil companies in the US are hindering the development of the transport of the future. They should be investing in the inevitable.

 

quote: Biden is great. He is a man of integrity. Trump would be supporting putin. He still hasn't even denounced putin. Why not? Because trump is no better than putin. really? just what nation did trump invade for no reason? how many nations did putin invade when trump was in office? how many nations did putin invade under bobo? and how many nations did putin invade under biden? (if)_ trump was on putins side, why didn't putin invade all of ukraine when trump was in office. hummmmm?

quote: Yes. I'm a physicist who has studied the energy problem for over 40 years really? how do we know that? you made statements about trump you can't prove. so why should i believe this statement from you?

quote: I do know what I'm talking about and how do we know that? you made statements that you can't prove, and now you want us to believe this? i don't think so. not by a long shot!!!

that is my view of your statements. sorry if i offend you, not trying to. just stating a fact imv.

 

i agree to a certain extent. but for over 100 years they have tried to get ev to work. but during that time the compainies iirc used their (own) money. now biden is using (taxpayer money) for give backs to people buying ev's. that is imo---crazy--- and a bias move on this. the taxpayers were not asked if they wanted their money to support silly left wing green, crazy idea's.

quote: It is just going to take a hell of a lot longer than the democrats are allowing for in their Doomsday Prophecies to get there. and a lot of wasting of tax payer money imo.

 

Stop blathering on the internet and look up the facts.

 

Indeed.
Development has moved on at a huge pace and what some in here describe as an EV was back in history.

For example,

https://li-cycle.com/news/electric-car-battery-recycling-explained/

The while cycle of EV's is developing rapidly and is the future for the automotive industry. Those who don't take part will be left way behind.

 

The biggest problem is that batteries don't create energy. You need fossil fuels to charge the batteries. And the electric grid need to be at least 3 x more powerful to carry that load. If you think electric cars are clean, find out where the energy to charge the battery comes from.

As for recycling, they admit they don't have have good methods

https://li-cycle.com/news/electric-car-battery-recycling-explained/

So the recycling is dirty and only recovers a fraction of the materials.

 

The newer ev's create their own electricity from running the engine.
The aim right now it to severely reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Not eliminate them altogether.
Development will sort out what is physically possible/optimal.

 

That is a hybrid, not an ev. And they run on gasoline.

Electric cars don't reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. They just move the problem from your engine to the power plant. They help a little through increased efficiency but not much.

 

No.
I just told you cars today can generate their own electricity and charge their own batteries.
Yçur reliance on pure fossil fuel energy is hugely reduced.

 

Of course they will waste a lot of taxpayer money, but at the same time, my rates are my rates whether they spend a trillion more here or there. It really depends on the bulk of the deplorable masses' willingness to buy them. Right now, for most people, the zap zap rides would be more money and effort than they are willing to put into an EV. I personally think we will see more hybrids pretending to be EV's over the next 20-30 years than we will see everybody driving a glorified golf cart.

 

What is green is the vehicles themselves. Not the source that powers and makes the vehicle.

How many cars will be removed all over the world that produce toxic emissions?
Then those power generating companies can be made to produce energy with less toxic emissions some point in the future.

It's much easier to control power companies than it is to control millions and millions of cars. IMO.

Most auto mfgs are moving to EV all on their own.
AFAIK, there's no fed mandate in USA to move to all electric, but mfgs are doing so any way. At least for cars. Maybe not yet for trucks.