Yup. Exactly as I suspected. That is exactly what controlled opposition looks like.
Each side gets pieces of the truth, with all the best counter points left out.
There is no doubt plenty of electric vehicles are supported by fossil fuels. There is also no doubt plenty of electric vehicles never touch the stuff, and are completely supported by energy from the sun. Most probably fall somewhere in between, since the same demographic that would buy EVs also buy solar, but that same demographic is often suburban (grid tied, not off grid). That particular brand of solar is usually supported by fossil fuels.
There are plenty of problems all around, both with EVs/Solar AND with fossil fuels (which is really a misnomer, but it's an easy term to use). Ultimately solar is probably the best path, since the energy is literally free. The problems with it currently are mostly that both the solar panels and the storage solutions (Li-ion batteries) are both designed specifically to fail (as is everything we use) to increase consumption, without any good recycling infrastructure in place. These are issues that are engineering problems (AKA solvable), not inherent with "getting energy from the sun".
On the opposite side, fossil fuels DO have some serious pollution issues, even if the CO2 and "oil crisis" narratives are bupkis. That doesn't mean that they too can't be solved by some engineering, but we aren't there yet.
However, all the "controversy" is created specifically to drive division. Neither side sees the whole truth. Neither side can have any meaningful discussion about it, because each side gets the narrative overlay that says "the other side is lying."
Both sides are correct; the other side is lying by omission; the primary tool of controlled opposition.
there are coal power plants, natural gas, nuclear, solar and wind, could be others I missed.
The juice that gets put into an EV can be from any of those sources, but the point is the juice comes from somewhere not fairy dust.
right now it's more eco friendly to keep an old car out of the junk yard than to build a new EV.
Obviously, some day we'll all be using EVs and they will work and make sense, we have to start somewhere but it's funny to make fun of the eco-mentalists who think they're saving the planet by driving an EV.
The only benefit is they are the beta testers and are paying the early adopter tax.
One bad thing is that interest in EVs is dropping due to the facts that everyone who is going to get one of these early designs already has one, the grid can't handle 100% adoption, they only make sense for certain "in town" use cases, they are expensive, they don't live up to the marketing brochures, low production volume models are ruinous to fix unless you buy new, and the battery production seems to be pretty horrific.
Yup. Exactly as I suspected. That is exactly what controlled opposition looks like.
Each side gets pieces of the truth, with all the best counter points left out.
There is no doubt plenty of electric vehicles are supported by fossil fuels. There is also no doubt plenty of electric vehicles never touch the stuff, and are completely supported by energy from the sun. Most probably fall somewhere in between, since the same demographic that would buy EVs also buy solar, but that same demographic is often suburban (grid tied, not off grid). That particular brand of solar is usually supported by fossil fuels.
There are plenty of problems all around, both with EVs/Solar AND with fossil fuels (which is really a misnomer, but it's an easy term to use). Ultimately solar is probably the best path, since the energy is literally free. The problems with it currently are mostly that both the solar panels and the storage solutions (Li-ion batteries) are both designed specifically to fail (as is everything we use) to increase consumption, without any good recycling infrastructure in place. These are issues that are engineering problems (AKA solvable), not inherent with "getting energy from the sun".
On the opposite side, fossil fuels DO have some serious pollution issues, even if the CO2 and "oil crisis" narratives are bupkis. That doesn't mean that they too can't be solved by some engineering, but we aren't there yet.
However, all the "controversy" is created specifically to drive division. Neither side sees the whole truth. Neither side can have any meaningful discussion about it, because each side gets the narrative overlay that says "the other side is lying."
Both sides are correct; the other side is lying by omission; the primary tool of controlled opposition.
there are coal power plants, natural gas, nuclear, solar and wind, could be others I missed.
The juice that gets put into an EV can be from any of those sources, but the point is the juice comes from somewhere not fairy dust.
right now it's more eco friendly to keep an old car out of the junk yard than to build a new EV.
Obviously, some day we'll all be using EVs and they will work and make sense, we have to start somewhere but it's funny to make fun of the eco-mentalists who think they're saving the planet by driving an EV.
The only benefit is they are the beta testers and are paying the early adopter tax.
One bad thing is that interest in EVs is dropping due to the facts that everyone who is going to get one of these early designs already has one, the grid can't handle 100% adoption, they only make sense for certain "in town" use cases, they are expensive, they don't live up to the marketing brochures, low production volume models are ruinous to fix unless you buy new, and the battery production seems to be pretty horrific.