Before proceeding further, I would like to strongly impress upon my readers that what I’m saying in this article is not that some serious flaws about EVs have just been discovered. I’m not saying, for example, that EV technology is unsound, by any means! Neither am I saying that the claims of EV manufacturers are too tall. The performance claims of electric vehicles are realistic and agree well with what were stated. Then, what is this article trying to get at? Whatever means by this ‘dark side’? The reply to these questions is that earlier tests of EVs have missed on taking a from-a-grassroots-level, of utilizing holistic view of the entire EV ecosystem — in addition to that the main life-cycle between manufacture and retirement. In fact, that part life-cycle of EVs between manufacture and retirement is recognized to us, and we know that EVs have passed all tests of this spend the flying colors. However, if one changes one’s perspective to include the entire EV ecosystem, and then carries out a of utilizing holistic analysis, those ‘dark’ facts will soon become apparent. Now, let’s take a tour of what experts have found in this matter.
(A) USE OF LIGHT-WEIGHT PARTS THAT ARE ENERGY electronic supply co INTENSIVE TO MANUFACTURE, THUS LEADING TO GLOBAL INCREASED TEMPERATURES
The battery of an EV is by far its heaviest and most expensive part. The battery of the Tesla Roadster, for example, is the reason regarding green third of its weight.
To provide the same payload to users, the weight of the unusually heavy battery includes lots for by reducing the weight of other regions. In order to produce light-weight EV parts, aluminum and some h2o and composites are primarily used.
Energy intensive production processes are involved in the manufacture of the above light-weight materials. The vitality accustomed, comes from energy production processes that have an associated h2o and impact e. grams. arctic energy is usually derived from the burning of coal or other fossil fuels and the GHGs released, expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents is the h2o and impact.
The end user, being the EV ecosystem in this case, needs to assume responsibility for the associated h2o and impact. By consequence, the EV industry is not ‘clean’ as supposed. It does have a significant pole in global increased temperatures, though indirectly, on account of its dependence on the materials mentioned above.
(B) SOLAR TECHNOLOGY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ENERGY FROM CONVENTIONAL SOURCES
To date, charging EV batteries using solar technology is more costly compared to grid taken charging (which, in turn, receives energy from conventional sources viz. hydro, arctic, nuclear, wind & tidal). This means that no matter what other claims might be made, the per-mile cost to operate an electric car will be higher than that of a gasoline/ diesel powered one. Consequently, the EV will be an unattractive transport option until such time as solar technology becomes cheaper than energy from conventional sources.
(C) EXPECTED SLOWDOWN IN GLOBAL INCREASED TEMPERATURES A FANTASY
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a greenhouse gas (GHG) that is manufactured in small quantities when EV batteries are manufactured. This gas is 12, 900 times more powerful, when compared to CO2 in terms of its global increased temperatures potential. In other words, just 1 tonne of sulfur hexafluoride, on entering the atmosphere, will produce global increased temperatures effects comparable to 12, 900 tonnes of CO2. (View details of SF6? If yes, click this link. It should take you to Section 2. 10. 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes’ Assessment Report #4 (2007) called “Direct Global Increased temperatures Potentials”)