Government Watch / Politics

The Batteries in Electric Vehicles Are Not The Solution to Replace Fossil Fuels

By Michael J. Gordon

As a child, I loved watching Dragnet and one of the hallmarks of Dragnet was Sgt. Joe Friday saying, “This is the city–Los Angeles, California.” “I carry a badge.” “My name’s Friday.” But the line I enjoyed the most, which was repeated often in many of the episodes was “Just the facts, ma’am”. My intention in dealing with this subject matter is to just present the facts.   

I used to be part-owner of a recycling station in Florida. The bulk of our business was handling 40 yard roll off dumpsters from various waste management companies that were mostly used by construction and other commercial businesses. We would pull out all the recycling materials, such as wood, metal, cardboard, etc. What remained was sent to the landfill. I understand the feasibility of recycling and the challenges of landfills.  

Per the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the three major categories of energy for electricity generation are 61% fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), 19% nuclear energy, and 20% renewable energy sources (wind, hydro, solar, biomass and geothermal.)

As a side note, hydrogen is a clean fuel that, when consumed in a fuel cell, produces only water, electricity, and heat. Hydrogen and fuel cells may play an important role in our future national energy strategy, with the potential for use in a broad range of applications, across virtually all sectors—transportation, commercial, industrial, residential, and portable. The International Consortium for Fire Safety, Health and the Environment reported that even though all current fuel cell and hydrogen vehicles are experimental, they are being tested in low numbers on public roadways. However, as a developing technology, fuel cells and hydrogen have some associated safety concerns that must be addressed. Also, according to The Brillouin Energy Corp., they have announced a breakthrough Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT) Boiler System which uses solid-state low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) to produce controlled excess heat through the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium, releasing no emissions, no radiation and no “spent” radioactive fuel material like what we see in the nuclear power industry. This breakthrough uses solid state metal lattice technology that was once dismissed by nearly all conventional physicists and has now been validated, patented, and published in numerous scientific journals.

While I am all for recycling and a cleaner atmosphere, electric vehicles make no sense for the environment or as a replacement for fossil fuels because they rely on batteries. “Going Green” may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green can be more destructive to the Earth’s environment than meets the eye.

The most obvious fact is that “batteries do not make electricity” – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an Electric Vehicle (“EV”) is a zero-emission vehicle is just not true. For example, if 38% of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from natural gas and 22% is from coal, it follows that 60% of the EVs on the road are powered by fossil fuels. Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, just like a gas tank in a car.

Secondly, electric batteries are bad for the environment. There are two orders of batteries: rechargeable and single use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. They all contain toxic, heavy metals. Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses over three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. Also, all batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think the battery is dead but it’s not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill. In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is 90% of them are recycled.

Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly. For those excited about electric cars and a green revolution, take a closer look at batteries (as well as windmills and solar panels). All three technologies have significant environmentally destructive production costs. A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells. Keep in mind that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery. Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. (FYI – Driven by demand for lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles, the cobalt market is thriving and the top 5 producers, two of which are China based companies, control the market. The USA is totally dependent on cobalt.) 

I stated earlier that landfill issues also apply to solar panels and windmills. Well, California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being “green”, but it’s not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. The main problem with solar is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- Di selenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled. Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weigh 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contain 1,300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. While wind and solar technology can be a source for renewable energy, you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions and earth friendly.

In fact, on July 14, 2022, the Los Angeles Times published a report detailing the “environmental danger” of expired solar panels on the environment. “California has been a pioneer in pushing for rooftop solar power, building up the largest solar market in the U.S.,” the article began. “More than 20 years and 1.3 million rooftops later, the bill is coming due.” The Times’ Rachel Kisela reported “Beginning in 2006, the state, focused on how to incentivize people to take up solar power, showered subsidies on homeowners who installed photovoltaic panels but had no comprehensive plan to dispose of them. Now, panels purchased under those programs are nearing the end of their 25-year lifecycle.” Toxic waste from solar panels is not just a Californian problem, but a problem nationwide.” About 140,000 panels are installed every day in the United States, and the solar industry is expected to quadruple in size between 2020 and 2030,” Kisela said. But there are difficulties surrounding disposal of solar panels: “Recycling solar panels isn’t a simple process. Highly specialized equipment and workers are needed to separate the aluminum frame and junction box from the panel without shattering it into glass shards. Specialized furnaces are used to heat panels to recover silicon. In most states, panels are classified as hazardous materials, which require expensive restrictions on packaging, transport and storage,” she continued. “A lack of consumer awareness about the toxicity of materials in the panels and how to dispose of them is part of the problem,” Kisela wrote.

My last point regarding the use of batteries is that the expected boom in the number of EVs will have a serious effect on the power utility grid. A charger converts electric energy to DC and charges the battery in an electric vehicle. An electric vehicle with a unidirectional charging capability would act as a load in the power system. They are directly connected to the power utility grid and draws power to charge the battery of electric cars and other EVs. Electric Vehicles are comparatively large loads that connected to the power grid when they are being charged. If an electric car with a 60 kWh battery charges 80% in 6 hours, then it consumes 8 kWh/hour. In comparison, a typical household consumes less than 5 kWh per day! Imagine the load increase if a large number of electric cars are connected to the grid for charging. It considerably increases the load on the grid. Furthermore, electric vehicles typically charge after coming home from work. The typical load curve of a household is highest from 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm. Uncontrolled charging of electric cars during peak hours will considerably affect the quality of the power utility grid.

Case in point – California energy officials issued a sobering warning in May 2022, telling residents to brace for potential blackouts as the state’s energy grid faces capacity constraints heading into the summer months. And since the state has committed to phase out all new gas-powered vehicles by 2035, the additional load from electric vehicle charging could add more strain to the electric grid. Ram Rajagopal, an associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, authored a recent study looking at the strain electric vehicle adoption is expected to place on the power grid. “Today’s grid may not be able to support it. It all boils down to: Are you charging during the time solar power is on?” In August 2022, those warnings in California became much more dire.

Lastly, if we are truly earnest in finding alternative sources of electricity to replace fossil fuels, then there needs to be an honest discussion about expanding our nuclear power plant footprint.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”) reports that nuclear power plants are among the safest and most secure facilities in the world in generating electricity. We all know that accidents can happen, adversely affecting people and the environment. According to the World Nuclear Organization Library, there have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

  • Three Mile Island (USA 1979) where the reactor was severely damaged, but radiation was contained and there were no adverse health or environmental consequences.
  • Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire killed two people initially plus a further 28 from radiation poisoning within three months and had significant health and environmental consequences.
  • Fukushima Daiichi (Japan 2011) where three old reactors (together with a fourth) were written off after the effects of loss of cooling due to a huge tsunami were inadequately contained. There were no deaths or serious injuries due to radioactivity, though about 19,500 people were killed by the tsunami.

These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 36 countries. Statistically, the evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. No industry is immune from accidents but the risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining.

Terra Power, a private company founded by Bill Gates designs and builds (small modular reactors (“SMR”). SMR’s are built in a factory and shipped to a site to be assembled. SMR’s are built in an assembly line like airplanes and the costs are dramatically cut with regulatory approval being one and done. The key strategy to this design is to allow these SMR’s to be assembled on old coal brownfield sites where water, power lines and infrastructure are already in place. In fact, Terra Power is building their first SMR in Wyoming on an old coal site while Another company NuScale is building 10 plants in Poland and one demonstration plant in Idaho. Another benefit to installing SMR’s on old coal brownfield sites is creating new employment opportunities to those who had worked in the coal mines. SMR’s may prove to be the future for our electric grids.

One day, alternative energy technologies might be sufficiently robust to replace fossil fuels in some of our major applications but until that time, it is crucial that American energy independence is protected through the continued development of the United States petroleum and natural gas.  

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
8 days ago

All excellent points… but I have one MAJOR criticism.
Where has the Democrats and New Green Deal proponents ever stated they were going to do any of this? The only real actions they have been taking is to spend Billions (soon to be Trillions) with some general mandates – e.g. all vehicles must be electric by 2035.
They have provided no statistics or details. No strategy. No plan.
We should be demanding a plan from these radicals.
Basic question: Convert all cars, trucks, buses… convert all oil and gas heating… convert all fossil fuel power plants to “green” electric… how much do we need? How much?
After you understand how much you need to create you need the plans of how to generate it, transport it and store it. How many solar panels, wind mills, batteries…
Stop spending our tax dollars without understanding what the goals are and how they will be achieved.

Ted Shaub
29 days ago

I agree with the bulk of this print. Chernobyl disaster cost 1000’s of life’s. It placed most of Europe in harms way. I have been near Chernobyl and have seen it’s devastating effect on those peoples and their country. Although, I do believe nuclear is the direction for our energy needs. This is a complex problem which requires a multidisciplinary approach for solutions.

Randy Bryan
1 month ago

An accurate but deficient article.
Yes, battery cars embody more polution than a gas car/truck, but that deficite is quickly [<2years] overcome with cleaner electricity from the grid and local solar.
Batteries recycling business are being started and will significantly decrease the pollution footprint of a battery vehicle over the next decade.
Hydrogen vehicles are more pollutiing and expensive than combustion cars currently, but research hopes to fix that in time.
Nuclear power is just swapping one 2000 year pollution problem for another [carbon vs plutonium]. Note that when we produce combust or release carbon molecules, they can last for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere-oceans-land before assimilated. When a nuclear plant breaks, the whole area must go vacant for at least a millenia. When a solar-wind-battery source breaks, it can be fixed in days-weeks-months.
I do agree that nuclear should play a role as bridge technology to a clean future. The Broullian-LENR idea may have legs when/if it is better demonstrated and proved. It could be a real game changer.

Jerry Roane
1 month ago

Advanced EVs will get 297 mpgE which drastically changes the starting assumptions assumed here.

1 month ago

You didn’t mention fossil fuel pollution, which is kind of a huge oversight considering the massive health & quality of life benefits of vehicle electrification, and considering that your main point revolves around battery pollution and recycling problems. The two don’t even cancel out, fossil fuel pollution is FAR worse on many levels, from the air pollution claiming millions of lives worldwide annually to the orphaned oil & gas wells companies leave behind all over Texas and New Mexico to disastrous oil spills and entire ecosystems & local economies being decimated for the extraction of dirty energy and much more.

Also, yes we are well aware of the grid-related challenges – though you didn’t mention that climate change is the biggest strain on the grid itself – and the burning of fossil fuels is behind climate change, so yes electrification is a grid challenge but there is a major opportunity here to improve and upgrade our already aging grid infrastructure. The Biden administration/Energy Dept are in the middle of doing just that, a major nationwide upgrading of the grid, improving interconnection and building more transmission lines & all that. There is a ton of renewable energy sitting in queues right now, unable to be used and distributed far & wide by the grid, but this problem is being reduced and interconnection increases everyday. There’s money for it in the Infrastructure and IRA bills, as well as for an enormous build-out of charging infrastructure.

No one said it would be easy to transform our transportation sector, but that’s the direction we’re going in. And in the meantime, you’re still wrong I’d argue. Sure, an EV isn’t a ZERO emissions vehicle…yet. But you act like it’s all or nothing. An EV is at least using the 20% renewables, whereas vehicles with ICE (internal combustion engines) are 100% dirty powered. And that 20% slice of the pie is growing rapidly every year. Literally with every passing day your argument weakens.

You do make a valuable point about recycling and how we will deal with batteries, you’re not the first to make it though and there are efforts to deal with this aspect, which absolutely does not outweigh the immense advantages of transportation electrification AND the equally immense harms associated with the burning of fossil fuels.

That is true even having only touched upon the whole, you know, global warming/climate change/existential threat aspect…kind of a big deal, don’t you think?

I almost forgot to add the part that many consumers care most about: cost to your wallet! With the latest federal policies and legislation in place (stuff mentioned above + tax incentives and more), YOU WILL SAVE MONEY ON EVs! If not at first, then absolutely within a year or two you’ll break even and then save plenty over the life of the car. EVs are far more efficient than ICEs in their use of electricity relative to ICE use of fuel, they last longer, and it is already cheaper in most parts of the US to charge an EV than it is to fill up your gas tank, and the more the electrification transition proceeds the more pronounced the difference between the two will be.

Finally, and this is connected to the last paragraph, gasoline (and oil & gas products in general) are a global commodity. The US is already energy independent, has been for about a decade (since around the midpoint of Obama’s presidency). In fact, we produce so much energy of all kinds that we are a better EXPORTER OF FOSSIL FUELS. That is why we aren’t experiencing anything like the energy crisis in Europe, which imports much of its oil & gas – less & less each year as more clean energy comes online but a great deal for now. What we are vulnerable to though, as is every consumer at the pump in the world basically, is the PRICES. The US producing more does nothing to lower that – we’re still just one country out of many suppliers of, again, a GLOBAL commodity. OPEC, an alliance of most of the biggest suppliers, has the power to affect prices by increasing or reducing production & supply. In fact, just yesterday Saudi Arabia, a key OPEC leader, announced that they’re reducing supply. And that brings me to my point in this last paragraph of a long post – the OPEC nations and pretty much every major oil & gas producing country besides us, Canada & Norway is run by an awful, autocratic regime that at best cooperates with us on some issues but shares none of our values and commits all kinds of atrocities (Saudis, UAE, Qatar – Gulf states basically) or at worst is actively a direct threat to America and a major rival/enemy on the global stage that also shares none of our values and commits atrocities (Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc). Everytime you fill up at the pump, a percentage of your money goes to the dictators of these states and the horrific things they do to their people and to other nations (Russia in Ukraine biggest current example). And even the percentages that don’t go to them really mostly go to the money-hungry fossil fuel industry – Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, Total, etc. None of these actors want to increase supply because amidst the current global energy crisis they’re making a fortune on the higher prices.

In summary, the negatives you mention are legitimate but their impact is lessening with every passing day or efforts are underway to overcome them long-term, and the positives (many of which you don’t mention) are increasing, strengthening everyday, and even right now, it is still worth it, on an individual level, to switch to an EV, and on the global/societal/greater good level, it is imperative that we do.

1 month ago
Reply to  Kyro

You certainly have created an opinion Kyro. Much to think about, but still not satisfying enough for me to wholly come on board..
There’s an existential threat, but it has nothing to do with ‘man-made’ climate change, but rather with man-made policies – especially the democrat’s push to change the way we live and conduct our daily routines.

This NWO discipline revolves around the so-called green new deal (steal) which is being attempted on a world-wide scale. This consists of initially changing our energy sources and the way we use it. This alone affects everything we do and have. There is nothing that isn’t touched by energy – and right now we’re in the process of wrecking what works best for us!

You can’t help yourself to tell us that Big Oil/Gas/Coal is evil and makes too much coin and has too much influence. Well … meet the new boss, same as the old boss … Big Green!!
You talk about tax-breaks and incentives towards the puchase of the New Electric, including EV’s and home heating etc. THOSE ARE MY TAXES AND INFLATION PAYING FOR THESE INCENTIVES!! THERE’S NO WINNING! – And will get a lesser product! I personally will have to retro-fit my home for new heating system as I use gas now and quite happy as is… thousands of $$$ soon to be gone! And it will not be cheaper Kyro.
Retirees on relative fixed income watching IRA’s dwindle due to the Inflationary practices of this administration is abominable!
Treason is in order here.

The process of changing over will create a void making us vulnerable to our adversaries as they will not abide by these new rules. China, Russia, India, and Africa are building more coal-fire plants to stoke their energy needs. The US under democrats policy, is cutting back on oil, coal and gas – even though we have the cleanest production capability in the world. We’ve developed carbon capture to reduce the pollution. The best in the world! Now, Manchurian Biden is begging other oil and gas producers – OPEC+, Venezuela, Iran and others for their less quality and more expensive products. For God’s Sake – WE WERE PRODUCING OUR OWN AND WERE ENERGY INDEPENDENT!!!
Our supplies have been reduced due to multiple EO’s by Biden to stop pipelines, drilling permits and access to federal land – and now dipping into our Emergency Reserve Oil supply to offset the rising costs… This is insane and boneheaded thinking by an administration that has bitten off too much of the Stupid!

BTW, read Alex Epstein, Bjorn Lombard and John Shellenberger. We are not choking on our carbon emissions nor are we burning alive. We will need our natural fuels for a long time to come. We can’t just shut off what we have with nothing to adeqately replace it with. – Nor should we have to be penalized with higher cost for using natural fuels until we have that replacement.
The amount of heavy metal and minerals needed to build an infrastructural grid to accommodate the extra load of electrical devices aka EV’s etc, is extraordinary. We will be stripping land(mostly not ours) and turning mountains into mole hills to extract them.
We will have landscapes destroyed installing the acres and acres of inefficient windmills and solar panels. High maintenance and ugly ugly ugly…
Hope you don’t love birds because they’ll be killed by the millions – even as I speak.
Fish too, whose migration patterns are also adversely affected, along with the fishing capabilities off the coastal areas Mass, R.I. and New York/Long Island .. and others.
Livelihoods affected.


1 month ago
Reply to  G-Man

There is no way the average person can afford an electric vehicle and replace the battery at a cost of 20 grand.

2 months ago

Thanks for a great informative article. One more thing that needs major consideration is does USA have a source of all these minerals or will we end up dependent on foreign imports??

Michael Lewis
2 months ago

The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles | Graham Conway | TEDxSanAntonio

Scott Becker
2 months ago

Well, a few problems with the article. First, solar and wind increase the amount of electricity they produce every year, so electric cars constantly and consistently become cleaner as time goes on. Second, if three major nuclear disasters in only 60 years is acceptable to you, perhaps you shouldn’t be the person writing articles about safe energy practices. That number is way too high. Shut down the nuclear reactors as they retire. They are much too expensive, nuclear waste is a major problem, and as we are now seeing in the Ukraine, expect the unexpected. Just too dangerous. Shut them down. Lastly, solar and wind continue to drop in price, and now that energy storage through flow batteries is providing cheaper storage, we no longer have to worry about when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. Overall, the whole premise of your article would be correct about 10 years ago, but you need to get more current in your research. I suggest you read up on your subject matter.

Michael Gordon
2 months ago
Reply to  Scott Becker

My article was about the inefficiencies of batteries and the damage to the environment in making them. Nor are using batteries as the backup power source for solar power an ideal solution. In terms of safe energy practices, Our World In Date shows that based on the energy production deaths death rates per terawatt-hour, the safety of nuclear power is rated between solar and wind.
Deaths per terawatt-hour of energy production deaths per terawatt-hour – 2021
Biofuels 0.00
Biomass 4.63
Brown coal 32.72
Coal 24.62
Gas 2.82
Hydropower 1.30
Nuclear 0.03
Oil 18.43
Solar 0.02
Wind 0.04
Energy consumption is gradually transferring from the traditional energy sources such as oil, coal, natural gas, to new sources such as wind, thermal, hydrogen, etc. and among these new sources, the most practical are solar energy and nuclear energy. Both of them originate from atomic fission or fusion, both have been used for electricity production, and both have been widely studied in the current research areas.
In regard to our electric grids, my point about nuclear energy is it America’s work horse, providing constant, reliable, carbon-free power to millions of Americans. Nuclear has roughly supplied a fifth of America’s power each year since 1990. And Gates new small modular reactors will greatly reduce cost factors.
Also, nuclear has the highest capacity factor which means nuclear power plants are producing maximum power more than 92% of the time during the year. That’s about 2 times more as natural gas and coal units, and almost 3 times or more reliable than wind and solar plants.
Nuclear power plants are typically used more often because they require less maintenance and are designed to operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years). Renewable plants are considered intermittent or variable sources and are mostly limited by a lack of fuel (wind, sun, or water). As a result, these plants need a backup power source such as large-scale storage (not currently available at grid-scale) or they can be paired with a reliable baseload power like nuclear energy.
Based on the capacity factors above, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid. And as we move away from fossil fuels, we will have an even less robust electric grid without nuclear.

Stephen Tran
2 months ago
Reply to  Michael Gordon

The problem here is nuclear waste and the disposal of it which you did not address as you did with wind and solar energy

2 months ago
Reply to  Stephen Tran

Good point

Clive Arlington
1 month ago
Reply to  Stephen Tran

Perhaps the issue with nuclear waste can be addressed by launching (think SpaceX) a vehicle carrying the waste and crashing into the SUN!
Size of space vehicle and frequency of launches TBD.
A visionary like Musk can assist with the details/logistics for this potential solution!
Just a thought.

Phillip West
2 months ago

Got the theme right but credibility is damaged by many errors.

2 months ago
Reply to  Phillip West

So if you can do better, get’er done

Tonie p
2 months ago
Reply to  Phil

What errors???

Robert Powell
2 months ago

This is a great article because it is factual and can easily be confirmed. It should be sent to all the idiots in Congress.

Marta Alvarez
2 months ago

What a wonderful article, thank you for this wealth of information. Could anybody please send this to Buttigieg and AOC? Mr. Gordon, you should give this lecture before the US Congress. The utter ignorance of ideologues like AOC and Buttiegeg is ruining this country. Is it too late already?

2 months ago
Reply to  Marta Alvarez

Do you actually believe that AOC and Buttigieg would accept these facts in the article as the truth that they are, when it doesn’t make their message viable. Remember that they believe that they, alone, know what is true and no one else is right. AOC will feel that you have personally attacked her.

Marta Alvarez
2 months ago
Reply to  MariaRose

You are right. I do not believe that they would accept facts, not enough brains for that. Besides it would not be as profitable. They are enjoying the fruits of their labor, as well as Newsom. Ideology vs. common sense. Like oil and water, no pun intended.

Jake the snake
2 months ago

Electric cars are not the solution. The democrats, especially Newsom and inslee, efforts to restrict technology to Electric cars is a demonstration of the constant short sighted efforts by democrats to put virtue signaling ahead of real problem solving.

If the epa and environmentalists would get out of the way vehicle producers would find better solutions.

If we wre honest and our goals we would find that highly reliable cars would br top of our list as that means less recycling, less new car building and more use from the same product.

Second we would be looking at 600cc cars with 10 speed transmissions and three speed diffentials. They would use far less fossil fuels and built right would last a long time.

Instead we will be stacking up batteries in salt mines next to the nuclear waste.

Dr Rene
2 months ago

So all those states under Ian’s hurricane path without electricity doing with theur useless EVs & Electric Panels easily torn down from the their roofs. They too are joining Californian’s on their Electric Grid fix, purchasing gas for the gas generators.

heil biden
2 months ago

a regular car has a generator that spins and recharges the battery/
an ev has four tires that spin why not develop a generator of some
sort to charge the ev battery while its moving/i guess that wouldnt give the libtards any thing
to bi**h about

2 months ago
Reply to  heil biden

The battery pack that essentially covers the entire bottom of most EVs is quite a bit more demanding to recharge that the simple starter battery / alternator setup in a typical ICE vehicle. While some sort of feedback recharging facility could be built into each drive motor assembly in an EV, the added weight and thus the additional electrical load the driver motors would have to compensate for would require the typical EV to be used for an extended period of time each trip to offset the energy expended from the battery pack. In simple terms, the battery packs in these EVs take substantially more power to recharge them than your standard battery found in current ICE vehicles today. Typical time to recharge a EV battery pack from near zero to full capacity is 6 to 8 hours with a standard 240volt charging unit. Any regenerative power feedback system employed to run off the 4 drive motors would have to operate for several hours at a time to have any potential to replace the electrical energy drained from the battery pack to operate the EV normally.

Dr Rene
2 months ago
Reply to  PaulE

Democrats believe cross county drivers will see nothing wrong with stopping 6-8 hours every 200+ miles to recharge their EVs. Everyone can afford a month to travel from California to the east coast vs 2+ Days.

2 months ago
Reply to  Dr Rene

Democrats never let reality stand in the way of their delusional and impractical dreams. It’s NOT the party of science, but rather the party of emotions run amok.

I’ve spoken to more than a few high level folks in the environmental movement over the years and as far as long distance trips go, they generally feel people should be restricted to limited mass travel options or even nothing at all. Their vision of the future is radically different from what most people are used to today.

They defintely don’t envision a country where people are simply allowed to go anywhere they want whenever they want anymore. It’s all about restricting the movement of people to what those in power think is “most beneficial to the planet or limited to the few that are deemed important people within society”. Think cattle car type trains for the masses, while the elite continue to fly in private jets everywhere. It’s all to save the planet of course as they all like to say endlessly. Which is why you always hear about commutes within city borders or travel by rail being emphasized.

Dr Rene
2 months ago
Reply to  heil biden

Humanity would end because Fossil Fuel give humans all they need to eat & survive.

2 months ago
Reply to  heil biden

You don’t know any physics. Keep the political jargon out of this technical discussion.

Kyle Buy you some guns,and learn how to shoot
2 months ago

Mr.Gordon wrote one fine article. Very thourigh. I,myself was in the Battery Business all my life. Right now this is not the way to go. Whats going to happen if lake water is low and cant generate power to charge up 100 million vehicles at nite. Shopping centers need charging stations. YOU WILL BE THJE ONE TO PAY FOR IT. Thinking abt. wind power. Your own windmill ?? Check your county laws plus you may have to rezone your area. Neighbors will have to be delt with. Could use water power to generate. Gotta creek in your yard ??? Give this a good study and lots of thought. Kyle L.

2 months ago

This is a really good article. I wish it could MUCH wider readership. I and a couple of my siblings have marveled at the shortsightedness of the left and their blindness to the actual costs of “going green.”

Dr Rene
2 months ago
Reply to  2mil

Blindness is correct as Green Energy doesn’t affect the rich. They will still use their Lemo’s & private polluting jets.

anna hubert
2 months ago

The only way to go totally green would be return to pre 20th century anyone thinking it would be like a set of Little house on the prairie better think again

2 months ago

This is a great article. How does one get the current administration/press to read and respond?

Cheryl Wisdom
2 months ago

You folks are doing a great job of reporting!! Thank you!

Stephen Russell
2 months ago

Ideal “EV”
Long Range
EZ to replace battery unit
mini thorium reactor for power
Tap electricity in the air.

But we have EV Issues:
Replace battery cost
EV costs
State electric rates
No Energy=No EVs for CA
Lack commercial chargers

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x