Delusional Owner of White Tesla - Number Plate "CO2 Free"

Misplaced on 13/12/2020 - 13:53
Last edited 13/12/2020 - 14:16 by 1 other user

I saw a white Tesla sedan getting around with number plates that boldly stated "CO2 FREE". Can anyone who can afford a Tesla really be that ignorant?

Where does he THINK the electricity comes from to charge up his machine??? (I bet a million dollars it was a coal-fired power station).

Have people actually fallen for the hype and think that their Tesla recharges in Australia are miraculously supplied from 100% renewable energy? Does Tesla charge enormous battery banks from solar panels and then supercharge your Tesla vehicle's batteries from them? I think not.

Is he even grandiose enough to think that the manufacture of his expensive machine and its masses of batteries involved an insignificant amount of CO2 emissions? I'm sure no CO2 was released in the process of earning the vast amount of money to pay for the expensive machine?

Besides all that, one recent study found that, all things being added together, "in reality, the Tesla has emissions between 156 and 181 grams of CO2 per kilometre - significantly more than a comparable diesel Mercedes."

I should point out that I don't especially care about climate science. Nor do I hate Tesla Cars. I just find his bold public statement about "emissions" particularly odorous.

Automotive

Related Stores

Tesla
Tesla

Comments

  • Hybroid on 13/12/2020 - 13:54
    +410

    Don't take life too seriously. It helps not to.

    • funnysht on 13/12/2020 - 17:40
      +25

      says the hybrid

      • What is rrp on 13/12/2020 - 18:18
        +5

        hi bro

      • drfuzzy on 13/12/2020 - 23:21
        +12

        says the high bird

      • pinkybrain on 15/12/2020 - 10:54
        +1

        hybroid

        • jv on 17/12/2020 - 11:15

          says the Hemorrhoid…

    • SF3 on 13/12/2020 - 22:17
      +7

      Indeed, 20 License Plates Tesla Owners Used To Troll Us there is one in the link as CO2FREE plate, seems common amongst them lot. 🤷‍♂️

      • gooddealmate on 14/12/2020 - 00:34
        +3

        Theres one on the Gold Coast with CO2 N4H

        Link

        • bio on 16/12/2020 - 17:47
          +1

          I prefer C2H5OH

          • jv on 17/12/2020 - 11:17
            +1

            @bio: Is that you Ethan ?

        • jv on 17/12/2020 - 11:19

          NH4

          That stinks…

    • frewer on 14/12/2020 - 11:34
      -7

      I wouldn't take life too seriously if my net worth is a few billion richer.

      Nothing is wrong with 1 trillion fiat richer, right ?

      • Hybroid on 14/12/2020 - 12:52
        +2

        No idea what your point is. Rich people exist, some of them are getting richer. Some of it is driven by our consumer lifestyles, literally this website. C’est la vie.

          • Speckled Jim on 14/12/2020 - 18:22
            +2

            @frewer: You have a problem with corporate socialism, despite those bail-outs saving thousands of jobs?

            That's the risk with running a small business. Maybe look up the definition of "small business" and understand the inherent risks associated with running one. Hint: there's often less income security, job security and most fail within 18 months.

            invisible virus

            Wrong again!
            If you think because we can't see it unassisted, it doesn't exist, you're the epitome of idiotic arrogance.
            Just look where that's got the USA.

            • frewer on 15/12/2020 - 00:27
              -7

              @Speckled Jim: So you dont want ppl take responsibility for their greediness that brings about down fall to others ? No worries. Save the giant corporation and left small business to dies, small businesses dont create job ?!?!? No worries.
              Calling people name is very intelligent thing to do ? No worries.

              Just look where that's got the USA.

              I did and here is my latest found out about this M.D testimony. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w&feature=youtu.be…, drug name is Ivermectin.

              • Speckled Jim on 15/12/2020 - 11:26

                @frewer: Reading includes something known as parsing, which is an essential and fundamental first step to comprehension.
                Please look them up.

                Now that you have a grasp of the basics, if you review the line you interpreted as a personal insult:

                If you think because we can't see it unassisted, it doesn't exist, you're the epitome of idiotic arrogance.

                You will notice it's conditional. This is denoted by the "If".

                This is unconditional: if you believe SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid19 doesn't exist because you haven't been given front-row, 8K UHD viewing privileges, you're an idiot.

                I won't be viewing an outlying quack on YT thanks. I know what Ivermectin is, and I know multiple studies across the world have discounted its efficacy in vivo. On April 10, 2020, FDA issued a statement concerning self-administration of ivermectin against COVID-19.

                From this Nature article to summarise:

                As noted, the activity of ivermectin in cell culture has not reproduced in mouse infection models against many of the viruses and has not been clinically proven either, in spite of ivermectin being available globally. This is likely related to the pharmacokinetics and therapeutic safety window for ivermectin.

                The blood levels of ivermectin at safe therapeutic doses are in the 20–80 ng/ml range, while the activity against SARS-CoV2 in cell culture (in vitro) is in the microgram range.
                ^ my insertion and emphasis

                The inference is, if you dose at a level effective enough to kill the virus, you will also kill the host.

            • The-Kremlin on 16/12/2020 - 23:58
              -4

              @Speckled Jim: Small business > Job.

              Employee life = Employee mindset.

              • Speckled Jim on 17/12/2020 - 00:04
                -1

                @The-Kremlin: Schools of bait fish in a huge, swirling mass. Safety in numbers.

                Isolated fish = dinner.

    • crob on 15/12/2020 - 10:34
      -2

      really needs to be taught to all the Gen Z'ers

  • BadHorse on 13/12/2020 - 13:58
    +76

    in reality, the Tesla has emissions between 156 and 181 grams of CO2 per kilometre - significantly more than a comparable diesel Mercedes.

    Also statements like this are obviously written with an outcome in mind, and short of providing details on the Tesla, 'comparable' Mercedes nor the link I wouldn't think that is anything more than just a poorly worded argument.

    It would hugely depend on how the Tesla is charged, how it is driven, where the electricity comes from (roof top solar top up?) etc etc

    • Lachy2437 on 14/12/2020 - 05:24
      +37

      Even in that unlikely scenario, the reduction of particulate emissions I'm cities from electric over diesel is massive. They are the main reason that Europe has turned off diesels in passenger cars in such a big way.

    • trongy on 14/12/2020 - 11:33
      +5

      It's probably from the heavily criticised study by the german IFO Institute.
      Here we go again: German research institute claims diesels are cleaner than EVs. This article has a link to the actual paper which is written in german.

      It would hugely depend on how the Tesla is charged, how it is driven, where the electricity comes from (roof top solar top up?) etc etc

      Indeed. If I see a comparison that assumes only 100% coal generated power or only 100% renewable, it's a red flag for bias.
      The good studies do the calculations both extremes and for a range of energy mixes in between.

    • Lord Fart Bucket on 14/12/2020 - 11:34
      +3

      There is CO2 produced during the manufacturing process.

      • dealsucker on 14/12/2020 - 12:00
        +13

        There is CO2 produced even when you breathe? Whats your point?

        • pinchies on 14/12/2020 - 13:04
          +3

          If you buy a used car, you are not directly contributing to new manufacturing of cars, and thus indirectly avoiding new CO2 generation from manufacturing.

          • TheFuzz damnyou on 15/12/2020 - 09:55
            +3

            @pinchies:

            If you buy a used car, you are not directly contributing to new manufacturing of cars

            Yes.

            and thus indirectly avoiding new CO2 generation from manufacturing.

            No. If you buy a used car, you are not directly contributing to manufacturing of cars — you are indirectly contributing to their manufacture by enabling the seller to more easily purchase a new car. It's better than buying new, sure, but is not actively doing any real kind of "good" in the sense that you seem to be implying.

            • bio on 16/12/2020 - 17:49

              @TheFuzz damnyou: If everyone buys a used car from the next person forming a circle the problem would be solved.

        • Lord Fart Bucket on 14/12/2020 - 17:18
          +4

          Stop breathing, save the planet.

      • GrueHunter on 16/12/2020 - 13:45
        +2

        Maybe next time he can get the extra-wide option and put CO2FREEPOSTMANUFACTURINGPOSSIBLYWITHTHEAIDOFOFFSETS and special snowflakes can feel less triggered.

    • Powlie85 on 14/12/2020 - 12:24
      -1

      True. Using a tesla powerball and lotsa panels on the roof to then cover electricity usage and car charges is the vision.

      Quick Google sessions shows tesla 3 can Dr I've 100km with approx 12kwh.
      Over 30,000 that's 3600kwh and according to powers shop in nsw this means 2.95tonnes of co2. That's 9.83kg of co2 per 100kms? Does that sound correct?

      I wonder if the emissions figures for combustible engines actually include the emissions of co2 that are connected to refineries.

    • cameldownunder on 16/12/2020 - 08:57
      +3

      One tesla owner I know, has a 12K solar system on his roof. Should be enough to recharge his tesla.

  • Seraphin7 on 13/12/2020 - 14:06
    +19

    Mate, kindly move out of the way … you're blocking the man's virtue signal.

    • Cusack on 14/12/2020 - 08:04
      +36

      OP is also virtue signalling.

  • whooah1979 on 13/12/2020 - 14:08
    +2

    Dude. Don't FUD Tesla.

    • payton on 13/12/2020 - 14:53
      +2

      Dude lets just worship Tesla

    • Tasmaniac on 14/12/2020 - 17:35
      +4

      OP clearly works for big oil.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/12/2020 - 08:33

      Waiting for my Tesla stock to double for the 5th time.

  • Quantumcat on 13/12/2020 - 14:09
    +43

    If he lives in Canberra, it is CO2 free - we produce more energy renewably than we consume

    • tessel on 13/12/2020 - 21:15

      Yes, that bullshit coming from a certain group of people creates an enormous amount of methane, so that must be the renewable source :-).

    • TheOtherLeft on 14/12/2020 - 07:28
      +10

      Being Canberra, don't you mean "we produce more hot air then we consume"???

      • dogzilla on 14/12/2020 - 10:02
        +2

        Being Canberra they also produce a lot of porn too apparently….surely that’s got a big carbon footprint (lights, cameras…and ahem…action)

        • AngusD on 15/12/2020 - 10:20

          Surely they're not producing that in the middle of a pandemic? That would be highly irresponsible - there are a hell of a lot of super-spreaders in that business ;P

    • irony on 14/12/2020 - 07:33
      +1

      Seriously? All our power comes from a couple of solar farms?
      They are doing a great job overnight too.
      Maybe /s ?

    • This Guy on 14/12/2020 - 07:42
      +6

      Pump water up a dam using coal power at night to release it during the day when energy costs more is not 'renewable'.

      Edit: Those dams are in NSW.

      • MorriJ on 14/12/2020 - 17:32
        +2

        Should have spent the money on lithium battery arrays? The transmission loss using dams as big batteries kinda sucks. Should have sent the offgrid power into battery arrays to be released during the day.

        • This Guy on 14/12/2020 - 18:56

          What?

          Transmission losses on a 330kV line should be below 2%. From memory, the whole system (Hydro Scheme and Transmission) had ~5% loss. It's the whole point of using large plant.

          Battery losses alone are often more than 5% reported. This is ignoring parasitic losses like aircon, line drop and internal resistance. Aircon alone for small installs is often 2/3 or 3/4 of the load. Then you have depth of discharge issues like redundancy, derating and replacement programs. Yes, with size comes efficiencies, but losses would still be close to double the existing storage system.

          Batteries are usually more cost effective if you feed them with solar to replace a genset and are significantly better at dealing with transients, but they suck at bulk storage compared to existing hydro.

          Installing a new MW sized hydro system or battery system would cause insane ecological issues. We need to use what we have, with limited additional battery storage to respond to transients and properly distributed, redundant wind to support base load.

          (I have not looked into the snowy hydro 2.0 scheme or what ever it is call now in any depth).

          • MorriJ on 14/12/2020 - 20:36
            +1

            @This Guy: I would have preferred to see an expanded snowy scheme than attempt to use it as a battery. I think there are better ways to achieve what they want to achieve with Snowy2.

            • This Guy on 15/12/2020 - 08:01

              @MorriJ: What part of the snowy 2.0 scheme do you want to expand? Why?

              It is a pipe between two reservoirs with a few turbines in the middle. As far as I can see in a 1 minute look, it's underground, to existing reservoirs, making the environmental damage minimal.

              What would you use hydro for instead in a drought stricken country in a location where most of the water is snow melt? (not being snarky, I want to know what I am missing)

              • MorriJ on 15/12/2020 - 11:10

                @This Guy: The Snowy scheme is not a problem; neither is hydro, Snowy 2.0 is not a hydro system (source of the electricity is coal) and only uses water as a battery storage concept at 40% transmission loss. It's barking mad,.

                https://npansw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Snowy-2.0-c…

                The Scheme itself makes no sense to me. It's not using hydro to generate electricity, it's running at circa 40% transmission loss and it as a project, just doesn't stack up.

                It's not a closed loop system, at best it is only a consumer of electricity and only makes electricity seasonally available and at a 2MW max peak flow. None of it makes any sense.

                Why spend $5 on this crap let along $5b. The returns on paper aren't there either. The sale of the electricity has to be at double the buy price before considering extra transmission losses. The damage to the national park is a problem. So is the balancing of the water recesses.

                • This Guy on 15/12/2020 - 20:04

                  @MorriJ: That is a very poorly referenced report.

                  Round trip efficiency has nothing to do with transmission. It's head loss. The diameter of the pipe is too small. It would have identical round trip efficiency at both power levels if it was transmission loss. It's on page 20 the referenced executive summary.

                  Grid connected batteries have similar losses due to pf, power electronics losses, parasitic loads like air con and actual 'transmission losses' (called voltage drop in low voltage systems). But you can't just gain 7% efficiency with batteries by operating at half load. Efficiency would decrease because you can't turn off the air con unless you want to significantly shorten your batteries life.

                  Why spend $5 on this crap let along $5b.

                  Because you measure batteries in Wh. Snowy 2.0 has 8GWh of storage. With a 50% discharge limit needed for LiFePO4 batteries, You would be looking at 16GWh of batteries with an additional 3.2 GWh needed every decade. So ~$16 billion up front and an additional $3.2B each decade…

                  Transmission losses

                  This system is to stablise a 800km plus long chain of renewable plants. You would be looking at 20% looses just to the east coast. This line goes thought this region. It would make no difference to have a storage plant in Canberra for Canberra and Sydney consumption. It might add 4% transmission losses for Victoria as you would be adding 300km.

                  And it barely matters. Renewable generation is almost free compared to thermal generation. Installations can be staged, on going costs are almost non existent and plant life can be measured in half centuries.

                  Environmental inpact

                  Significantly less than producing, transporting and disposing of 16GWh's of batteries.

    • Dslrfirst on 14/12/2020 - 08:47

      Agree.

    • MementoMori on 14/12/2020 - 15:27
      +1

      If only your state produced more value than tax dollars it consumes

  • holdenmg on 13/12/2020 - 14:18
    +14

    Maybe just the numberplate is CO2 FREE? lol

    • AdosHouse on 13/12/2020 - 17:33
      +3

      Maybe that's just what he calls his car "CO2 FREE". Like, "Honey, I'm taking CO2 FREE down to the shops".

    • pharkurnell on 13/12/2020 - 18:10
      +7

      Maybe he sells CO2 and his xmas special price is - free…. ???

    • Ryanek on 16/12/2020 - 19:26

      Maybe his ex wife's name is Coco and he's just happy with the divorce?

  • randomusername2017 on 13/12/2020 - 14:34
    +2

    But.. do they charge for CO₂?

  • FlipCrank on 13/12/2020 - 14:39
    +138

    If a car that literally emits zero exhaust fumes has a factually correct licence plate makes you this irate, I can't imagine what else sets you off.

    • Hardlyworkin on 13/12/2020 - 15:29
      +2

      Maybe OP can get a segment on the Quahog 5 news.

      • Charmoffensive on 14/12/2020 - 11:40
        +1

        y'know what else grinds my gears?….

      • brendanm on 13/12/2020 - 18:33
        +70

        How is that obvious? Did op follow the owner and make sure he wasn't charging his car with solar?

    • Cusack on 13/12/2020 - 21:33

      Exactly what I was thinking

    • fixtechstuff on 15/12/2020 - 16:41
      -2

      The C02 was emitted elsewhere like mine sites and factories. Saying a Tesla is C02 free is like buying meat from the supermarket and saying you are a cruelty free vegan.

  • User2049 on 13/12/2020 - 14:44
    +79

    Have you considered the fact that they may charge their car at home using their solar panels and home battery system. You could make the argument the construction and sourcing of raw materials to produce these products cause emisions, but the assumption that this statement is automatically false is illogical.

    • Loopenip on 13/12/2020 - 22:32
      +4

      Yeah you could make the argument about construction, sourcing, and logistics of such materials & goods but at the end of the day it's guaranteed to produce at least more than 0 CO2 somewhere down the line.

      But is this really worth a 50,000 word essay on how ridiculous it is? imo: No

      tl;dr: personally I wouldn't say it's necessarily illogical to argue it contributes CO2 somewhere down the line, I 110% think it's illogical to take it as far as OP LOL

      (And besides, you don't suddenly go from 100% CO2 to 0% CO2 in 1 day, incremental steps, like buying an electric car is a good step, you fund future electric cars etc.)

      • WaterMark on 14/12/2020 - 12:26
        +3

        But is this really worth a 50,000 word essay on how ridiculous it is? imo: No

        *awkwardly hides away half-written thesis. LOL

  • SF3 on 13/12/2020 - 14:47
    +8

    I should point out that I don't especially care about climate science. Nor do I hate Tesla Cars. I just find his bold public statement about "emissions" particularly odorous.

    That owner has got what s/he wants, attention, you have just boosted their ego further.

  • Bourb on 13/12/2020 - 15:21
    +3

    Could be just a coincidence, the Computer just randomly selected those numbers and letters for the new Number Plate :)

    • iDroid on 16/12/2020 - 13:18

      Do you work for an African lottery by any chance?

  • hmac on 13/12/2020 - 15:24
    +27

    Why does it bother you so much?

    • The Wololo Wombat on 13/12/2020 - 20:27

      Bothers me too.

      If you want to make a difference, make sure your actions are not just making you 'feel' better about it… but are actually making a real difference.

      It demonstrates a growing lack of critical skepticism - where companies/media can impress upon us ideas/ideals to which determine public opinion and action… even though these ideas are erroneous or incomplete (and of course serve the interest of those companies)

      This is a great example of that.

      Caveat, I love Tesla cars and I think they are better for the environment - I plan to own one (one day)… but I'm not under a delusion they are CO2 free… even if I charge at home.

      • Loopenip on 13/12/2020 - 22:33
        +14

        I think adoption of technologies, even if they're not 100% can fund improvements / future developments etc.
        Even if they're not 100% the solution now, a 10% step towards the final product is a good one imo

        • The Wololo Wombat on 13/12/2020 - 23:08

          I agree. This is why believing it's a 100% solution is unproductive thinking.

          • Jackson on 14/12/2020 - 01:16
            +10

            @The Wololo Wombat: Why infer that the owner believes its 100% when he is clearly talking about the fuel used to power it. Solar take up in Australia is amongst the highest in the world, so it's not unlikely that he is 100% C02 free on the fuel if you don't count the manufacturing emissions.

            Teslas aren't cheap and a lot of people are spending more on their Tesla than they ever would have on their car because they want to lower their C02 emissions, and there's nothing wrong with that. People spending those big dollars are happy to pay a few extra bucks to gloat about their achievement. No big deal

            I feel like the real issue is people that don't want to spend the extra money, or are unable to for financial reasons, find this type of behaviour makes them feel bad about not doing the same, or otherwise "virtue signalling", but isn't another term for that "setting a good example" or "being happy to take the first steps ahead of others who can't"?

            • trapper on 14/12/2020 - 13:01

              @Jackson:

              Why infer that the owner believes its 100% when he is clearly talking about the fuel used to power it.

              Maybe the owner is talking about the actual waste products produced by the car itself - which are of course 'CO2 Free'.

      • Praeto on 14/12/2020 - 11:58
        +3

        You're bothered because the guy that bought an EV should be making a real difference rather than just making himself feel good. He should do something like.. buying an EV, which you believe is better for the environment, and you would like to do yourself one day, but haven't yet..

        Makes perfect sense!

        All because he used a cheeky C02FREE license plate.

      • fixtechstuff on 15/12/2020 - 16:43
        -1

        Spot on. Living a lie doesn't help the environment. I too want a Tesla Car and Powerwall.

  • pjetson on 13/12/2020 - 15:58

    I thought QLD number plates only contained six characters?

    • JimmyF on 13/12/2020 - 16:00
      +3

      Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant!

    • Baysew on 13/12/2020 - 16:01
      +1

      Check registration status

      • pjetson on 13/12/2020 - 16:09
        +1

        Clearly I'm wrong - there are QLD number plates with seven characters.

        • Baysew on 13/12/2020 - 18:25
          +9

          Pity they couldn't add an extra three characters. Number plate could read CO2 Freeish, and this whole unfortunate post and resulting debate could have been avoided.

  • JimmyF on 13/12/2020 - 15:59
    +34

    Where does he THINK the electricity comes from to charge up his machine???

    Most likely their rooftop solar system. Thanks to things like the zappy charger you can direct excess solar into your car. So yeah.

    with number plates that boldly stated "CO2 FREE"

    Did you go smell their tailpipe and tell them its not CO2 free?

      • JimmyF on 13/12/2020 - 17:14
        +27

        Everything created in this world belches CO2 into the atmosphere…

        There fixed that for you.

        Your ICE powered car also has all those same issues, along with the extra CO2 created from sucking dinosaur juice out of the ground, refining it and transporting it around the earth so you can pump it into your tank and drive around and spew more CO2 into the air.

        If you think electric cars are CO2 free, you are delusional

        I never said they are CO2 free, But the fact is, they don't spew CO2 out the rear like your ICE vehicle does. Which is what the plate is referring to.

        Sure during making like everything else in this world, CO2 is produced.

          • Ak850 on 13/12/2020 - 20:21
            +12

            @pegaxs: You should listen to the podcast How to Save a Planet. They have an issue that covers EVs and CO2. They're better in terms of CO2 in most places (accounting for manufacturing and operating).

            I think this is the link:
            https://traffic.megaphone.fm/GLT2446679603.mp3?updated=16052…

            In theory, the owner could have purchased CO2 offsets for manufacturing CO2, and charge the car off PV. So it could be CO2 free. We can argue it death, but at the very least it is better than buying and driving a new ICE car.

            • pegaxs on 13/12/2020 - 20:56
              +2

              @Ak850: The problem is there are a lot of butt hurt people in here that read one thing and extrapolate that data up to fit their outrage. I have not said that EV's are a bad thing, I think EV's are wonderful and they are absolutely a step in the right direction (I own an electric motorcycle, scooter and a hybrid that I use for transport until EV prices come down). I don't need to listen to a podcast (but I hope some others listen to it), as I have already researched the topic of EV's in depth, and if anyone took notice on this forum of what I do say, they would know that I am very pro-EV, I'm just anti-ignorant-arrogant-vehicle owners/fanbois.

              The issues is that there are so many neggers here that think that EV's are totally green and emit no CO2, and this is an absolute fallacy. There is plenty of proof out there to see that EV's from production to end of life certainly contribute their fair share to the CO2 problem. There is no amount of negging my comments that changes the fact that EV's are not as clean as what people think they are. At some parts of their life cycle, they are worse than ICE vehicle, at other times, they are a lot better, but overall, taking in the whole life cycle of these vehicles, they are not the "zero emissions" vehicles they are marketed as being. And just because they don't have a tail pipe, doesn't mean they are "CO2 Free"

              As for the "offsetting", while it is a wonderful idea, it doesn't really fix other issues. It doesn't stop the CO2 from being produced, it's just a way of trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. It also doesn't offset the other environmental impacts that manufacturing has on the planet. The mining of the raw materials for making batteries and refining of it has more environmental impact than just the CO2 that is created from these processes.

              Anyway, neg away, sheep. It doesn't change the facts and it wont change my opinion.

              • BigBirdy on 14/12/2020 - 07:55
                +1

                @pegaxs:

                The issues is that there are so many neggers here that think that EV's are totally green and emit no CO2, and this is an absolute fallacy.

                And you’re here to enlighten us. So, as a typical car owner/user, if I go buy an EV, drive it for a few years then sell it, how much CO2 did my use of it emit?

                Do you also tell vegetarians that they are meat consumers because a human grew their vegetables?

                • pegaxs on 14/12/2020 - 08:18
                  +3

                  @BigBirdy: Neg votes don't change facts.

                  If you purchased a brand new EV, unless they pulled it magically out of thin air, then you contributed about 12~14 tonnes of CO2 before you even drove it out the dealership parking lot.

                  To remain Zero Emissions after that, you would need to charge the vehicle entirely off solar (that is dirty to make the panels, cables and inverters). And that is best case, and you are still contributing CO2. Realistic case is you plug it in at home, charge over night, charge it at the shopping centre, at the charging station, your friends house, and all of these contribute to CO2.

                  All you neggers are butt hurt because you think I am saying that EV's are as dirty as ICE vehicles, and that is not what I am saying, all I am trying to say is that EV's, while cleaner to run, are not as clean to build (at the moment) or run or own as what people think they are…

                  No amount of getting upset at me stating facts and putting a little imaginary number into negative on a bargains forum is going to change facts.

                  • BigBirdy on 14/12/2020 - 08:47
                    +2

                    @pegaxs:

                    butt hurt

                    How old are you? Do you really think anyone doesn’t understand the silly point you are trying to make, and that it is just … silly?

                    • pegaxs on 14/12/2020 - 10:43
                      +4

                      @BigBirdy: The "point" I'm trying to make is that so many people think that EV's are totally zero emissions. The sheer number of negs I have gotten is testament to the misinformation people are willing to accept as fact.

                      People think that EV's are clean, when, in fact, they are not. At some points in their life cycle, they are actually more damaging to the environment than an equivalent ICE vehicle. People don't want to hear this. All they hear is the marketing spin and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and needs to be shouted down.

                      As I said already, all the negs on this site are not going to change the fact that EV's are not as clean as people think they are. And a lot of people here are reading into what I am saying as "EV = bad" and that is not what I am saying here. EV's are great and will only get better with time, but to think that EV you buy now is "CO2 Free" is just ignorance of the larger picture that makes up EV's as a complete life cycle.

                      • trapper on 14/12/2020 - 13:06
                        +2

                        @pegaxs:

                        The "point" I'm trying to make is that so many people think that EV's are totally zero emissions.

                        EV's ARE totally zero emissions.

                        You're just redefining 'emissions' to include things the vehicle never actually emitted at all.

                        There is a difference between vehicle emissions and total environmental impact.

                      • jimothy9 on 14/12/2020 - 23:36
                        +2

                        @pegaxs:

                        The "point" I'm trying to make is that so many people think that EV's are totally zero emissions.The sheer number of negs I have gotten is testament to the misinformation people are willing to accept as fact.

                        Absolutely everybody understands that electric cars cost CO2 to produce, and in many cases more up front than an equivalent petrol car.

                        This is not a controversial statement. It's not in dispute. You're not schooling anybody and you're not exposing some hidden truth that people are unaware of.

                        It's just that most people understand that it's a transitional state as the supply chain progressively gets cleaner. EVs are a small part of a larger solution, but they aren't a solution by themselves.

                        It's like saying "most people don't realise water is wet", when everybody already knows water is wet, and is sick of forums being full of people saying "Why won't people talk about water being wet!"

                        We already know.

                        .

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join