Over-the-top anti EV propaganda piece

[Ghost Ryder]

Usually the media source, in the interest of transparency, would identify the writer's employer or industry if the opinion was about or affected that industry.

Well, at the bottom, it's states: Jason Isaac is founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute and a distinguished fellow for Life: Powered at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF).

Didn't really hide that.

Sponsored

 

[phil]

But everyone isn't allowed their own facts.

That's your opinion.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

But everyone isn't allowed their own facts.

Well let's look at what he said:

1) Hertz selling 20k Tesla. True.

2) Hassle of EV charging. True

3) Longer to charge during cold weather. True

4) Downside of Cobalt. True.

5) Few recycled Battery, True.

6) Less than 25% Energy used to charge EVs come from non renewable resources. He's being generous. Apparently the number is closer to 13%.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/#:~:text=The United States uses a mix of energy sources&text=Primary energy sources include fossil,produced) from primary energy sources.

7) US gov't is subsidizing EV purchases. True.

The article is clearly bias because it doesn't list the positives of EV ownership, but it would be hard to deny the negatives that he laid out. And say that they are made up.

 

[Old_Norm]

That's your opinion.

No it's a fact. You can think the world is flat and tell others that, but you can't state factually that the world is flat.

 

[Old_Norm]

Well, at the bottom, it's states: Jason Isaac is founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute and a distinguished fellow for Life: Powered at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF).

Didn't really hide that.

Thanks, I didn't see the article but looks like the publication followed general practices.

 

[Mrn]

Well, at the bottom, it's states: Jason Isaac is founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute and a distinguished fellow for Life: Powered at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF).

Didn't really hide that.

Since he included the words 'energy' and 'Texas' those were a dead giveaway? Texas has more clean energy infrastructure than most states.

 

[mateo]

And that is based on 20202 numbers, from before “Bidenflation” had hit Americans’ pocketbooks.

20202 numbers is a lot of numbers!

 

[Two Trick Ponies]

The oil and coal industry is scared and fighting back. That's it. We're starting to hurt their pocket books. Let's keep it up!

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Since he included the words 'energy' and 'Texas' those were a dead giveaway? Texas has more clean energy infrastructure than most states.

He listed his affiliation and who he works for.

That's like the CEO of a Bristol Myers company writing an article about the benefit of aspirin. It's clear where the bias is coming from. But if the reader needed more info they could of just click on the link on his tag line.

 

[DennisD]

So you think EV are going to end the coal and oil industry?

The people purchasing fewer and fewer ICE vehicles is what will kill the industry.

Whether that is an EV, Hydrogen or some other alternative energy source is left to be determined. The oil and coal industry is similar to what the horse and buggy manufactures surely faced when the automobile started to take hold.

It really doesn't matter at this point what influence they have now. The ball has started to roll down that hill albeit with a few bumps but the market will dictate what will ultimately be their demise. It can't be soon enough IMHO.

 

[MacherAWD]

So you think EV are going to end the coal and oil industry?

100%. We have a limited supply of Coal and Oil, might take 10k years, but we have unlimited electric sources.

 

[superdave80]

And people that write pro-EV opinions don't also do that? Completely glossing over negatives that really do exist. The difference is that the reader of the opinion they disagree with sees all the holes in the opinion while the reader of the opinion that agrees does not. It goes both ways on nearly every issue.

People having differing opinions is a good thing. Being exposed to things people don't agree with is a good thing. Shutting down anything one does not agree with and staying in a confirmation bubble is not a good thing.

All good points, but I have absolutely no idea why you posted your rant in response to my post. I've seen PLENTY of bad info, exaggerations, etc. on the pro-EV side. Seriously, my recent favorite was "Buy an EV so you don't spill gas on yourself filling your ICE!!!!"

Me pointing out that this opinion piece is full of crap doesn't automatically mean I agree with crap on the other side.

 

[corradoborg]

The is what is so frustrating about EV advocates. They really don't understand how the world's energy industry works, especially how petroleum fuels are created. They think by replacing ICEV with EV the demand for gasoline shrinks and therefore the oil industry shrinks and eventually will die out.

What most people don't understand is fuels and petroleum chemicals are produced in strict ratios to each other, which are fixed based on the processing infrastructure used to distill them. So that means if you want to keep the current and future levels of commercial aviation flights you get the same amount of gasoline and diesel in ratio to jet fuel. The petrochemical industry just can't switch production ratios overnight. It will take numerous decades and tens of trillions of dollars to re-ratio the industry. All of that will drive the costs up of your daily life.

Short-sidedness is expensive.

Yes, short-SIGHTedness is expensive. Like the short-sightedness of hiding/denying the known climatic effects of burning fossil fuels for the past 40 years just so oil industry execs and shareholders could get richer. Now we as a society spend tens of billions of dollars a year dealing with the consequences of climate change. And it will reach $ trillions/year before it gets better. We could've avoided most of that if we had started reducing our burning of gasoline in the 20th Century when we already knew about the problem.

Most industries are working on reducing their petroleum-dependencies. Some will take longer to develop alternatives than others. Airplanes will go green, too. It's just harder than it is with cars, so it's taking longer.

Regardless, this "ratio of distillation" argument is irrelevant. Even if oil has to be extracted for use in other industries for the next hundred years, we're still better off to stop burning it in cars now. Even if we have to start stuffing refined gasoline back down into the earth to get rid of it because we still need the other distillates but cars don't run on gas anymore, then that's what we should do.

 

[superdave80]

5) Few recycled Battery, True.

Strangely, his '5%' claim doesn't actually show up in the report he links to (at least not that I could find):
https://www.cas.org/sites/default/f...WHP100560220101-LIB_Recycling-White-Paper.pdf

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Strangely, his '5%' claim doesn't actually show up in the report he links to (at least not that I could find):
https://www.cas.org/sites/default/files/documents/{653f1a27-cad6-41ad-b065-c6e0bfb38ebf}_CASGENENGWHP100560220101-LIB_Recycling-White-Paper.pdf

https://www.futuretracker.com/post/electric-vehicle-battery-recycling#:~:text=Because of the complexity of,lithium-ion batteries are recycled.

This is the first link when I searched "What percentage of EV batteries get recycled." They article says 5%. I didn't delve into whether the source is bias or not. Just one data point.

This is the source they quote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779

Sponsored