"Batteries are comprised of .. and cobalt" except when they arent (LFP) "has a lifespan of 100,000 miles" except it doesnt (see Renault ZOE reporting, see Tesla used car market etc.) "one ton is as much 2.500 miles of an ICE" so if you can charge via solar, you are net positive after 40.000ish miles (framing is everything) "coal is the main source for power generation" irrelevant, as in general new capacity is not and would not be built in coal thus new demand by EVs would not be covered by coal but more likely by extended renewables. (+ you can work on that yourself if you are a solar owner). "they tend to be heavier than gas powered cars" correct, though (as i see it) the implication is that this would be inefficient which is wrong. Tire usage goes up and road maintenance goes up, which is both bad but compared to the impact of trucks negligible. + you can build lighter EVs and the auto industry is coming around to that idea since they have been kicked off their high horse after the pandemic. "we are still figuring out how to best recycle these batteries" many of them will live in stationairy energy storage systems as many already do today and batteries are 97 something % recyclable. We just need the recycling capacities for it. "a gas powered car costs 30.000$ while an EV costs 40.000 to 50.000$" a) cherry picking the price of the ICE (no source) b) cherry picking the price of the ev in the named range + c) ignoring the fact that cheaper EVs exist, just not in the US (see Citroen EC3, Dacia Spring, BYD Dolphin). Its a US problem, not an EV Problem. Side note about the dangerous component if they leak out. Its the exact same problem with anything else mechanical moving. If you have a bus crash (EV or ICE) you will have an environmental impact. Train failures probably have less impact, but it wont be zero, so i dont see why this fail state should be more note worthy than any other. Its a complex problem, but leaving out critical nuances in communication does not bring us forward. Its a farily simple list when it comes to environmental impact, not driving is better than public transport is better than EVs is better than ICEs in most cases. If you can improve the statistic (e.g. own solar for EV power) it can be better to own an EV, if you own a reasonably efficient ICE (or hybrid) its probably better to keep it running instead of scrapping it for a new EV. There are issues with the technology and out energy generation in general, but those issues are being worked on and the technology today is already a lot better in many cases as presented here and in other media. Nuance is important in all directions and spreading old information (battery lifespan) does not help anyone.
I love the information you gave in your comment. It helps me learn more however... LFP batteries are only found in model 3 and Y standard ranges. 100,000 miles is the lifespan of the battery not the car according to evoconnect. Now that depends upon which xar or specific model it is if course. I have specified coal because as of now we are more reliant on coal power then anything else. I have mentioned the msrp of 40k to 50k as a reference because that's the average cost. Kia makes picanto and it costs 20k aud while the Renault ZOE costs 33k aud which is point. Yes we can demand for more but for "NOW" that's all we have. Yes you can build lighter EV cars but my point of this video is that I am talking about current issues we are facing and how this is just not the answer and we have to do better. I never said we can stop or should stop our research if you go through my entire video you will see that part. So in short... no it's not "old" information. It's cutrent information and I only hope for the improvement.
Trust me i am in the same team as you lol and want them to do better with electric cars haha it's just we are not there yet and I am just addressing that
@@AutoArchive180 To each his own, but "i am in the same team as you" is ingenious, considering knowledge posted by the OP is missing from video (which is readily availabel to anyone researching the EV). When I look at the channel, it looks like astro turfing. All good gas, ev only negative. For anyone else, try "Driving Cleaner How Electric Cars and Pick-Ups Beat Gasoline on Lifetime Global Warming Emissions" by UCS, though that should be only starting point.
I am sorry but maybe you are not really looking into the kind of videos I make where I defend EV cars when it's needed. Take a look at my other videos like "Lamborghini's answer to Tesla: Lamborghini Sian" or even "$770k Electric Rolls-Royce: Worth It?".
0:40 I wonder how many decades humanity takes to realize "better" is not a valid metric for any comparison. When you are living in a dense city like Tokyo, where there is a subway station every 10 steps away, taking the subway certainly is "better" than taking a car. However, when you live hours away from the next big city and you want to actually get anywhere within the same week or so, you'd "better" own a car. "Better" is NO metric! It's as context sensitive as it gets. It's like asking "what is the best color?". So the next time anyone asks "what is better", please respond with "define better - then I'll tell you".
We need less cars and more bikes, trains, trams and roads/tracks to them. It would give a lot more space in the city and reduce noise too. Just imagine how much average persons spends for a car every year and what if we gave that money for public transport and roads for bikes and walking.
good example of that is amsterdam, it was just like american cities in the 1980 but now theres almost no cars in there and it looks a lot prettier too.
Finally, someone gets it, but see, that's just a dream for us, haha. One of my future project is how car manufacturers brainwash people to make them buy cars, which people don't even need. I will do my best to expose them, but I do wish we had more bikes, trains, and trams instead of cars, honestly.
When I see this kinds of videos I dont see: The cost of petrol refineries and extraction plants, the cost of ICE manufacturing, the cost of lubricant manufacturing and processing, etc. The cost of petrol stations construction, and petrol distribution to them and their enviromental implications. A comparison between ICE motor manufacturing vs electric motor manufactring. Biassed video.
I hope you watched the entire video because this video was only on how EV cars might not be the answer as of now because of our current recourses. I did mention at the start of my video that petrol cars are just as bad, if not worse. So no, it's not biased video. I did mention few good things about ev cars as well. It's hard to please everyone on RUclips haha.
We need less cars and more bikes, trains, trams and roads/tracks to them. It would give a lot more space in the city and reduce noise too. Just imagine how much average persons spends for a car every year and what if we gave that money for public transport and roads for bikes and walking. E-cars maybe are little better than petrol cars but they still arent good and definetly will not fix climate change or polution problems.
@@AutoArchive180 you show people suffering from cobalt extraction as if there was no people harmed for oil extraction over the past 150 years. Not to mention gold, copper, rare earth or any other... whatever... When informing its not a problem to please but not to partialy or.. whatever. Good luck.
You don't get the point of this video do you? I never said that we were saints for the past 150 years. All those mines for gold copper and whatever are not good but I am not talking about them. I am talking about EV cars only and we are also not helping anyone with making them "today"
@@IvandelMuntSoler no need to try to correct such people. They either won't understand the real numbers or just want to ride the wave that is trending.
"Batteries are comprised of .. and cobalt" except when they arent (LFP)
"has a lifespan of 100,000 miles" except it doesnt (see Renault ZOE reporting, see Tesla used car market etc.)
"one ton is as much 2.500 miles of an ICE" so if you can charge via solar, you are net positive after 40.000ish miles (framing is everything)
"coal is the main source for power generation" irrelevant, as in general new capacity is not and would not be built in coal thus new demand by EVs would not be covered by coal but more likely by extended renewables. (+ you can work on that yourself if you are a solar owner).
"they tend to be heavier than gas powered cars" correct, though (as i see it) the implication is that this would be inefficient which is wrong. Tire usage goes up and road maintenance goes up, which is both bad but compared to the impact of trucks negligible. + you can build lighter EVs and the auto industry is coming around to that idea since they have been kicked off their high horse after the pandemic.
"we are still figuring out how to best recycle these batteries" many of them will live in stationairy energy storage systems as many already do today and batteries are 97 something % recyclable. We just need the recycling capacities for it.
"a gas powered car costs 30.000$ while an EV costs 40.000 to 50.000$" a) cherry picking the price of the ICE (no source) b) cherry picking the price of the ev in the named range + c) ignoring the fact that cheaper EVs exist, just not in the US (see Citroen EC3, Dacia Spring, BYD Dolphin). Its a US problem, not an EV Problem.
Side note about the dangerous component if they leak out. Its the exact same problem with anything else mechanical moving. If you have a bus crash (EV or ICE) you will have an environmental impact. Train failures probably have less impact, but it wont be zero, so i dont see why this fail state should be more note worthy than any other.
Its a complex problem, but leaving out critical nuances in communication does not bring us forward. Its a farily simple list when it comes to environmental impact, not driving is better than public transport is better than EVs is better than ICEs in most cases. If you can improve the statistic (e.g. own solar for EV power) it can be better to own an EV, if you own a reasonably efficient ICE (or hybrid) its probably better to keep it running instead of scrapping it for a new EV. There are issues with the technology and out energy generation in general, but those issues are being worked on and the technology today is already a lot better in many cases as presented here and in other media. Nuance is important in all directions and spreading old information (battery lifespan) does not help anyone.
I love the information you gave in your comment. It helps me learn more however... LFP batteries are only found in model 3 and Y standard ranges. 100,000 miles is the lifespan of the battery not the car according to evoconnect. Now that depends upon which xar or specific model it is if course. I have specified coal because as of now we are more reliant on coal power then anything else. I have mentioned the msrp of 40k to 50k as a reference because that's the average cost. Kia makes picanto and it costs 20k aud while the Renault ZOE costs 33k aud which is point. Yes we can demand for more but for "NOW" that's all we have. Yes you can build lighter EV cars but my point of this video is that I am talking about current issues we are facing and how this is just not the answer and we have to do better. I never said we can stop or should stop our research if you go through my entire video you will see that part. So in short... no it's not "old" information. It's cutrent information and I only hope for the improvement.
Trust me i am in the same team as you lol and want them to do better with electric cars haha it's just we are not there yet and I am just addressing that
@@AutoArchive180 To each his own, but "i am in the same team as you" is ingenious, considering knowledge posted by the OP is missing from video (which is readily availabel to anyone researching the EV). When I look at the channel, it looks like astro turfing. All good gas, ev only negative.
For anyone else, try "Driving Cleaner How Electric Cars and Pick-Ups Beat Gasoline on Lifetime Global Warming Emissions" by UCS, though that should be only starting point.
I am sorry but maybe you are not really looking into the kind of videos I make where I defend EV cars when it's needed. Take a look at my other videos like "Lamborghini's answer to Tesla: Lamborghini Sian" or even "$770k Electric Rolls-Royce: Worth It?".
Yep
0:40 I wonder how many decades humanity takes to realize "better" is not a valid metric for any comparison. When you are living in a dense city like Tokyo, where there is a subway station every 10 steps away, taking the subway certainly is "better" than taking a car. However, when you live hours away from the next big city and you want to actually get anywhere within the same week or so, you'd "better" own a car.
"Better" is NO metric! It's as context sensitive as it gets. It's like asking "what is the best color?".
So the next time anyone asks "what is better", please respond with "define better - then I'll tell you".
We need less cars and more bikes, trains, trams and roads/tracks to them. It would give a lot more space in the city and reduce noise too. Just imagine how much average persons spends for a car every year and what if we gave that money for public transport and roads for bikes and walking.
good example of that is amsterdam, it was just like american cities in the 1980 but now theres almost no cars in there and it looks a lot prettier too.
Finally, someone gets it, but see, that's just a dream for us, haha. One of my future project is how car manufacturers brainwash people to make them buy cars, which people don't even need. I will do my best to expose them, but I do wish we had more bikes, trains, and trams instead of cars, honestly.
When I see this kinds of videos I dont see: The cost of petrol refineries and extraction plants, the cost of ICE manufacturing, the cost of lubricant manufacturing and processing, etc. The cost of petrol stations construction, and petrol distribution to them and their enviromental implications. A comparison between ICE motor manufacturing vs electric motor manufactring. Biassed video.
I hope you watched the entire video because this video was only on how EV cars might not be the answer as of now because of our current recourses. I did mention at the start of my video that petrol cars are just as bad, if not worse. So no, it's not biased video. I did mention few good things about ev cars as well. It's hard to please everyone on RUclips haha.
We need less cars and more bikes, trains, trams and roads/tracks to them. It would give a lot more space in the city and reduce noise too. Just imagine how much average persons spends for a car every year and what if we gave that money for public transport and roads for bikes and walking.
E-cars maybe are little better than petrol cars but they still arent good and definetly will not fix climate change or polution problems.
@@AutoArchive180 you show people suffering from cobalt extraction as if there was no people harmed for oil extraction over the past 150 years. Not to mention gold, copper, rare earth or any other... whatever... When informing its not a problem to please but not to partialy or.. whatever. Good luck.
You don't get the point of this video do you? I never said that we were saints for the past 150 years. All those mines for gold copper and whatever are not good but I am not talking about them. I am talking about EV cars only and we are also not helping anyone with making them "today"
@@IvandelMuntSoler no need to try to correct such people. They either won't understand the real numbers or just want to ride the wave that is trending.