Just got verbally abused by an EV basher

[hans]

When I encounter these kinds of people, I don't try and convince them on the "green" stuff. It never works. I just smile and say "Who cares? It's fast, amazing to drive, and I think it looks great!". People can understand you bought a car because you enjoy the car. If more people would buy EVs because they enjoy driving them, then the end result for the environment is the same.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

When I encounter these kinds of people, I don't try and convince them on the "green" stuff. It never works. I just smile and say "Who cares? It's fast, amazing to drive, and I think it looks great!". People can understand you bought a car because you enjoy the car. If more people would buy EVs because they enjoy driving them, then the end result for the environment is the same.

And is price competitive with the competition, while costing drastically less to operate. It just makes financial sense.

 

[ElSupreme]

When I encounter these kinds of people, I don't try and convince them on the "green" stuff. It never works. I just smile and say "Who cares? It's fast, amazing to drive, and I think it looks great!". People can understand you bought a car because you enjoy the car. If more people would buy EVs because they enjoy driving them, then the end result for the environment is the same.

I go this route also. I am a known liberal here in Georgia. I get a lot of 'you bought a hippy tree hugger car' then I tell them 'green' was about third or forth on my list of why I got an electric car. I tell them the luxury of silence and smoothness is the big factor. The second big factor is speed, handling, size. The third factor is cost to operate. Then I start talking about green, and HOV access and whatnot.

And everyone that sees this car in person gets the general 'bad@$$edness' that the Model S exudes.

 

[JRP3]

I'd like to offer a service so that anyone confronted with an EV detractor can put them on the phone with me and I can shred all their ridiculous arguments and leave them stunned and begging for mercy. I'd like to, but I'm afraid I'd never get any sleep. I recommend reviewing Nick Butcher's articles on Seeking Alpha, he's done a very extensive job of debunking the bunk. seekingalpha.com/author/nick-butcher

 

[Jaff]

Either that JRP, or, Al can post the guy's email addy here and we can all "have at 'im"... :wink::biggrin::biggrin:

 

[Al Sherman]

He's actually not a jerk. Just totally convinced that I'm wrong. I thought I covered all of his objections in my first email response. However, here's what he wrote. Anyone that wants to take a shot at a response that may do better than I obviously did have at it! I would love to forward responses to him that are thoughtful, respectful, and common sense based. Thanks in advance.

He wrote: It is a fact that any conversion of energy to another form results in an energy loss. The EV involves two conversions – i.e., fossil fuel to electricity and electricity to battery then to EV. The ICE requires only one energy conversion fossil fuel to the ICE.

In addition, the manufacture of batteries both original and replacement, the charging of batteries and the disposal of batteries require additional energy use.

Thus the total energy used in the life cycle of an EV (or hybrid) is likely equal to or greater than the ICE vehicle. And, of course, enormous tax resources are spent on the hybrids and EV’s via subsidies to manufacturers and users.

It seems to me that these resources would be better used developing a cleaner fuel for ICE vehicles – perhaps hydrogen.

In the meantime, enjoy your Tesla which is a great car, but don’t forget you owe me at least two martinis for my subsidy which allows you to buy it for such a low price.

 

[ElSupreme]

He wrote: It is a fact that any conversion of energy to another form results in an energy loss. The EV involves two conversions – i.e., fossil fuel to electricity and electricity to battery then to EV. The ICE requires only one energy conversion fossil fuel to the ICE.

Two high efficiency losses are better than a single low efficiency losses. 100 * 60% *95% = 57, 100 * 35% = 35.You can also bring up another layer of energy transfer. Solar to Plant to Animal to Oil to Gasoline to Hot Compressed Gas. Versus Solar to Electricity directly. Pretty much all the energy on this planet is Fusion->Solar-> in origin, except for nuclear plants.

In addition, the manufacture of batteries both original and replacement, the charging of batteries and the disposal of batteries require additional energy use.

Thus the total energy used in the life cycle of an EV (or hybrid) is likely equal to or greater than the ICE vehicle. And, of course, enormous tax resources are spent on the hybrids and EV’s via subsidies to manufacturers and users.

I like taking the Humvee example. A Humvee gets say 10mpg (diesel). Over 100,000 miles it will cost (at $4.00 gallon) $40,000 in energy cost to operate it. A Prius couldn't use more energy total than a Humvee as it doesn't cost >$40,000. Not even close. You would have to tweak some numbers for the Tesla, but batteries don't take more energy to make than just driving with fuel.

It seems to me that these resources would be better used developing a cleaner fuel for ICE vehicles – perhaps hydrogen.

In the meantime, enjoy your Tesla which is a great car, but don’t forget you owe me at least two martinis for my subsidy which allows you to buy it for such a low price.

Bring up the BP oil spill and point out that the Feds are helping out oil too! And that is actually directly impacting people. And don't even get started on hydrogen. It is such a bad I idea it isn't even worth talking about.

 

[dsm363]

This is the classic argument from them. Notice he counted everything against an EV but only started with the ICE once the gas was in the tank. Tell him 'What about exploring, drilling, transportation of oil to the refinery, refining it into gas and transportation of gas to gas station?'

 

[dsm363]

Oil industry gets something like $3-5 Billion a year in tax breaks (not loans like Tesla got). Also say 'That $7,500 is a tax break where I send less of my hard earned tax dollars to the federal government. It isn't your money' since they always like to do the 'it is my money and I want to starve the beast' argument.

 

[hans]

 

[Doug_G]

It is a fact that any conversion of energy to another form results in an energy loss. ... It seems to me that these resources would be better used developing a cleaner fuel for ICE vehicles – perhaps hydrogen.

OMG, the energy conversion efficiency in creating hydrogen is absolutely horrible!!!

 

[dsm363]

Don't know if it is accurate but found this
The Real Deal on US Subsidies: Fossils $12B : Greentech Media

 

[ElSupreme]

Don't know if it is accurate but found this
The Real Deal on US Subsidies: Fossils $12B : Greentech Media

Why would I believe the green liberal media?

Got to be prepared for everything!

 

[dpeilow]

If he thinks he understands energy conversions, show him this...

 

[dsm363]

Why would I believe the green liberal media?

Got to be prepared for everything!

Yeah. Anyone know of a more central, traditional news source or academic type paper that addresses this topic?

 

[JRP3]

He wrote: It is a fact that any conversion of energy to another form results in an energy loss. The EV involves two conversions – i.e., fossil fuel to electricity and electricity to battery then to EV. The ICE requires only one energy conversion fossil fuel to the ICE.

False. The ICE requires energy to be expended in drilling and pumping oil out of the ground, then transportation losses for the crude oil, then losses at the refinery, then more transportation losses from the refinery to the distribution centers, then more losses from the distribution centers to the gas stations, then more losses as electricity is used to pump the fuel into your tank, Then it is finally used to move the vehicle, with around 80% or so of the energy lost by the internal combustion engine.

In addition, the manufacture of batteries both original and replacement, the charging of batteries and the disposal of batteries require additional energy use.

True. But the over all lifetime energy use of an EV, including pack construction and recycling, is still lower than an ICE.

Thus the total energy used in the life cycle of an EV (or hybrid) is likely equal to or greater than the ICE vehicle.

False. See above.

And, of course, enormous tax resources are spent on the hybrids and EV’s via subsidies to manufacturers and users.

False. Support for EV's is miniscule compared to other industries. The $7500 tax credit will equal around 50 cents per US citizen for the total 2013 Tesla Model S production run of around 20,000 cars.

It seems to me that these resources would be better used developing a cleaner fuel for ICE vehicles – perhaps hydrogen.

It can only seem that way if you don't actually know the total well to wheel efficiencies of ICE's, especially hydrogen.

In the meantime, enjoy your Tesla which is a great car, but don’t forget you owe me at least two martinis for my subsidy which allows you to buy it for such a low price.

Don't forget all the subsidies, including military spending, that allows him to fill his ICE for such an unrealistically low price.
More of my thoughts on subsidies:
EPhase: EV Subsidies, Why We Need them
EPhase: Conservatives Should Support The EV Tax Credit

 

[hans]

Don't even go into the rat hole of arguing about oil subsidies vs other subsidies. In most places, the $7500 federal tax credit is offset by the ~$7500 in sales tax. I just tell them your purchase is "tax neutral" and wasn't funded out of their pocket.

If you want to take the Tax Credit argument to the next level, I offer to give back my EV Tax credit if they will give back their (usually larger) home mortgage tax deduction.

 

[vfx]

I'll oversimplify like he did.

"It is a fact that any conversion of energy to another form results in an energy loss. The EV involves two conversions – i.e., fossil fuel to electricity and electricity to battery then to EV. The ICE requires only one energy conversion fossil fuel to the ICE."

Converting fossil fuel to electricity is 42 percent efficient. Sending that electricity to a battery is a 93 percent efficient. From the battery to the motor movement is 95 percent efficient.
The ICE is conversion from fossil fuel to engine movement is 17 percent efficient (it actually converts most energy into heat)

"In addition, the manufacture of batteries both original and replacement, the charging of batteries and the disposal of batteries require additional energy use."

A battery lives in the EV for 100.000 miles. The ICE consumes gasoline every day of operating till it burns up 4000 gallons of gasoline to travel the same 100,000 miles. The battery is recycled into new batteries. Gasoline ends up in the air.

"Thus the total energy used in the life cycle of an EV (or hybrid) is likely equal to or greater than the ICE vehicle. And, of course, enormous tax resources are spent on the hybrids and EV’s via subsidies to manufacturers and users."

As shown above the is simply incorrect. Tax credits and other breaks have been given to the petroleum industry for the past 100 years and still do despite being the most profitable corporations in the world. The paltry amount given to EV buyers and the loans afforded to the manufactures pale in comparison.

"It seems to me that these resources would be better used developing a cleaner fuel for ICE vehicles – perhaps hydrogen."

The energy to produce Hydrogen is five times that of simply putting electricity straight into a battery.

In the meantime, enjoy your Tesla which is a great car, but don’t forget you owe me at least two martinis for my subsidy which allows you to buy it for such a low price.

I'd be happy to buy you a drink and spend the entire evening telling you how fun my Tesla is.

 

[Dan5]

A quick estimate for the military subsidies is 3 cents per gallon to as high as 66 cents per gallon in order to secure the oil transport and stability of oil producing countries.

The current estimate for the MTBE clean up, which was a fuel additive is MORE than the entire EV tax credit program

If they cite road taxes that EVs aren't paying, I would say that the regular cars are unfairly being taxed for the damage being caused by heavy tractor trailers on the road. The damage is weight ^4 so a 80,000 lb trailer causes many thousand more times damage to the road than a regular car. I will gladly pay my fair share of road damage if the tractor trailers pay theirs.

Just an FYI- if an EV is taxed 100 a tractor trailer should be taxed in the millions.