Comment by mittensc
1 month ago
You select your 'facts' to fit your narrative.
If the obvious fact - coal is 20% of energy production in the US and falling - you worm yorself around it.
If you want to look at the US as a country, you use number of the country.
As such, coal is 20% of power used by EV.
A massive improvement.
Point dismissed, try something else.
> The primary point, however, is that EVs move the pollutants up the supply chain.
Massively less then ICE, have you researched the oil production chain or does it magically appear at the pump for you at no cost?
Have you researched the actual pollution numbers of your car?
> Now add a toxic battery on top of all of that, and all of the mining and waste disposal associated with it.
Source?
> You've moved your pollutants to China, added shipping lanes, and dumped more oil and now lithium into the ocean.
What added shipping lanes?, one more EV, one less ICE. Transport is the same.
> But you do get to say that the EV in a vacuum is zero emissions (at the location of inertial output only). Nice work!
I say it is massively better then ICE! I also say that I like not breathing cancerous ICE car exhaust.
> Your argument zoomed out to blanket statement the US where it suits you
I zoomed it to country level where you left it and where we can talk.
You, being defeated, had to imagine a very unrealistic scenario where you think you're right.
> It's truly very dishonest.
What you are doing is, yes.
> That argument is damaging to the public interest and to the environment, and insults the sciences.
Did you look in the mirror and say that?
Alas, my comment is for others amusent that might stumble onto this thread.
You are arguing in bad faith so good luck, you're wrong!
>If you want to look at the US as a country
Did you really not understand? I suspect you did, and in the context of your previous jokes, I think you're trying to annoy me. It'd be nice if that's not true.
Is it?
I suppose if we want to look at the US as a country (pretending it's all one city with one grid), then we will continue to encourage the 20% (roughly by your numbers) that drive gasoline in the coal power areas to downgrade to coal powered EVs.
I don't think that's good. I think you're careless and destructive for supporting that.
Anyway, you're not really acknowledging very real problems with your assertions and that's not going to make for coherent discussion. There's nothing scientific about that, so I suspect you might not be interested in science.
Lost my interest. Cheers.
For others reading, I'm happy to continue scientific discussion on this topic, especially if you disagree.