Tesla Owner Exposes Dark Secret About Electric Cars
By Paul Homewood
And here’s another environmental drawback of EVs:
Economists have long understood that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, but perhaps it’s time for electric-car enthusiasts to learn that lesson as well.
While tree-huggers and leftists alike tout Teslas and other such vehicles as a panacea for the ills of fossil fuels, they ignore the devastating environmental wreckage the manufacture and use of these vehicles leave in their wake — even when it comes to something as simple as their tires.
Brad Templeton, a senior contributor at Forbes, recounted his own eye-opening experience with his electric car’s habit of chewing through expensive treads at breakneck speed.
Full story here.
The extra weight of electric cars inevitable leads to both greater wear of both tyres and brake pads. Not only does this add to maintenance costs, it also adds to roadside pollution and the GHG emissions involved in producing them.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
How ironic that the EV revolution is ignoring the environmental pollution they cause. Having demonised ICE vehicles because of their non-polluting CO2 output, then impact of all that extra mining is conveniently ignored. A frank discussion of the whole life cycle impact of EVs versus ICEVs is long overdue.
Here we have the epitome of “virtue-signaling”. You don’t have to accomplish anything meaningful. All disastrous consequences are dubbed virtuous because you “had good intentions”.
My thought has always been, “Good intentions count for nothing…..results count for everything.”
In simple terms it comes down to “what is eco-friendly is what eco-activists say is eco-friendly”!
No objective observer (or anyone who has researched their construction processes) could ever dream of claiming that wind farms are an environmental improvement in any way. Apart from the actual damage they do to the environment their “whole life” emissions come close to exceeding those of an equivalent level of electricity generation from any other source. (I assume I’ve managed to phrase that correctly.)
The French have cracked it in their own inimitable way, of course, by simply designating gas as “green”. Maybe our next Prime Minister can be persuaded to pull the same stunt!
I have decided that Teslas burst into flames so often that I’ll refer to them as “external combustion vehicles”.
“Zero emissions except when on fire.”
EV’s aren’t intrinsically bad. Zero exhaust emissions is a genuinely laudable aim while some MPG and performance figures are just astounding, putting existing ICE supercars to shame.
The problem is politicians are pushing immature and pricey technology onto the public in an unrealistic timescale.
There’s problems with charging times and usability while high retail prices obstruct take-up. At the other end of the plug lead are substantial National Grid electricity supply issues.
Resolving those points are crucial to overall EV success but there’s no guarantee that’s doable either. Our energy supply ‘strategy’ is a disgrace while raw materials are rocketing in price, making EV’s less affordable, not more.
The bottom line is by imposing unrealistic and arbitrary deadlines politicians, not EV’s, are the problem here. Was it ever thus?!
Nonsense.
What’s “laudable” about net zero?
What’s even approaching net zero about the full manufacturing, maintenance and charging of these lunatic pink unicorn machines?
I said zero exhaust emissions. Exhaust fumes are pollution, CO2 isn’t.
I’m against NZ as much as the rest of you.
Globally
40% of Electric Cars run on Coal
66% of Electric Cars run on Fossil Fuels
79% of Electric Cars run on Non-renewable Electricity
Worst of all . . . up to 31% of the Electricity Produced to run Electric Cars
Is lost as HEAT before you ever put your foot on the accelerator
Electric Vehicles are By Far The Worst Transportation System ever developed
For causing excess ‘Man-Made Pollution’ on Planet Earth . . .
The ‘Emissions Free’ status given to Electric Cars is the belief in
Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy . . . All rolled into One !
For more details see the following papers . . .
https://www.academia.edu/74915195/Electric_Cars_The_Lies_Exposed_
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/350-energy/today/electric-vehicles-and-batteries/3204-will-electric-cars-be-the-primary-mode-of-transportation-for-the-21st-century?highlight=WyJqaW0iLCJsZSIsIm1haXN0cmUiLCJqaW0gbGUiLCJqaW0gbGUgbWFpc3RyZSIsImxlIG1haXN0cmUiXQ==
Net zero is a very stupid idea and anyone who believes in it should stop exhaling CO2 right now!
CR: your observation is correct. There is absolutely a place for EVs if the issue was approached by people with more than one brain cell. The obvious one is for small and medium size delivery vehicles in heavily built up areas.
Yes, we had them once.
They were called “milk floats”.
We had electrically powered “trolley buses” too; and trams, anyone remember them?
A car running LPG is effectively pollution free at the tail pipe.
And petrol cars can be converted to LPG realtively cheaply and easily – as per the very sensible government program about 10-15 years ago.
Catweazle
Certainly can remember them.
Also the larger industrial versions in the large factory complexes once so common in UK not to mention the fork lift trucks.
However the economics favour higher mileage drivers, where the tax differential covers the costs. LPG is selling for 99ppl against diesel at 199ppl. The mpg tends to be quite a lot lower, probably only 2/3rds of diesel. Also the tank is quite bulky, so you lose load carrying capacity and range. Since in the UK LPG is hardly ubiquitous at petrol stations that’s an important factor.
The real problem is limited supply. LPG is only a few percent of oil and gas and refinery output, no way adequate to cover our motor fuel use.
Meanwhile over to the serial scumbag Damian Carrington at the Grauniad and we get this piece of tyre spin (awful pun I know)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show
Bigger heavier cars are acknowledged as producing more tyre wear but…you can’t pin that on EVs oh no
“But there has been particular debate over whether battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which are heavier than conventional cars and can have greater wheel torque, may lead to more tyre particles being produced. Molden said it would depend on driving style, with gentle EV drivers producing fewer particles than fossil-fuelled cars driven badly, though on average he expected slightly higher tyre particles from BEVs.”
So despite the cars being much heavier only saintly angels drive EVs whilst the very Spawn of Satan drive petrol and diesels.
Followed by this weapons grade bullshit remark
“By 2024-25 we expect BEVs and [fossil-fuelled] city cars will have comparable weights. Only high-end, large BEVs with high capacity batteries will weigh more.”
Well yes a Nissan Leaf (small/medium sized family hatchback) already weighs the same as a full blown diesel Range Rover!
And EVs don’t lose weight while in motion, unlike fuel-powered equivalents.
That’s thanks to the special organic battery that gets lighter as it depletes. 😉
E = Mc^2 so they presumably do lose an immeasurably small amount of mass.
Jit
Wouldn’t one of those aluminium/air batteries actually gain weight as it oxidises?
Yes!
The whole deliberate farrago around EVs surely must come down some time soon. Take this article from “What Car” for example headlined “How far can electric cars go in the real world?”
https://www.whatcar.com/news/range-test-how-far-can-electric-cars-go-in-the-real-world/n23331
So then they detail their test conditions with lines like
” It was a relatively mild day with a mixture of sun and cloud and an air temperature of between 17deg C and 24deg. It was relatively still and there was no rain at all. In other words, it was near-ideal conditions for these electric cars.”
How much do you have to pay in bribes to get a motoring journalist to claim “real world” is the same as “near ideal conditions for these electric cars.”?
Last night I drove 215 miles from Loughborough to Kent. Setting off at 10:00p.m. I arrived home at 1.00 am with all but 5 miles of the journey on motorway/dual carriageway. Had I attempted that journey in a standard Nissan Leaf with the lights and aircon on, and no regenerative breaking effects cruising at 70 (and a bit!) I would have to be sure to have a fully charged battery at the start to guarantee not having to recharge twice en route.
So every likelihood of a 4 to 5 journey in lieu of 3…..progress?
Totaled Tesla goes up in flames three weeks after crash
A pit and 4,500 gallons of water were needed to put it out
https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/23/tesla_model_s_explodes_after/
An Advisory note from Bedfordshire Fire Service about fires in EVs says the following
“Once the fire is out the problems are not over. EV fires are known to reignite hours, days or even weeks after the initial event. Recovery firms are increasingly concerned about dealing with EVs”
https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/Community-safety/Road-safety/Fire-in-Electric-Vehicles-aspx
OHM’s Law . . . Resistance . . . 31% of the electricity produced is lost as HEAT . . . before you EVER put your foot on the accelerator !
Power plants and internal combustion engines produce energy at about the same rate.
So . . . Electric Cars are 31% less efficient than ICE’s . . . Science . . . Highschool physics.
https://www.academia.edu/73548362/Electric_Cars_Burn_31_More_Energy_than_Gas_Cars_Revised_
Why is it so bloody hard for people to understand this very simple concept ?
The power grid will have to produce 31% more energy than is currently used burning gas.
Even when you are using wind or solar you need 31% MORE . . .
Raw, Scientific ignorance is what this is . . .
But the wind and the sun are free, so it doesn’t matter that you need 31% more energy – 31% of free is still free. Hurrah, the future beckons…
Therefore for a given power requirement you need 1.4 times as many wind machines with 1.4 times the pollution to make them, 1.4 times the pollution to put them up and 1.4 times the environmental damage running them. And the pollution doesn’t even come free!
Dear Mr. Chapman, First, to build those wind turbines and those solar panels . . . you have to burn MORE fossil fuels in China to build them than they will EVER replace in their ENTIRE production throughout their life ! People who ignore how things are made and what it takes to make them . . . live in phantasy land. The following papers will explain . . . Ain’t Nothing in this World is Free !!
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/350-energy/today/electric-vehicles-and-batteries/3199-batteries-renewable-energy-and-evs?highlight=WyJqaW0iLCJsZSIsIm1haXN0cmUiLCJqaW0gbGUiLCJqaW0gbGUgbWFpc3RyZSIsImxlIG1haXN0cmUiXQ==
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/270-energy/today/multiple-energy-types/world/3208-clean-green-energy-net-zero-fairy-tales-on-steroids?highlight=WyJqaW0iLCJsZSIsIm1haXN0cmUiLCJqaW0gbGUiLCJqaW0gbGUgbWFpc3RyZSIsImxlIG1haXN0cmUiXQ==
Sorry – I should have put ‘sarc’; I thought it was obvious, but I see that it might read otherwise. Mr Lemaistre, I very much enjoy your contributions, and entirely agree with you.
And where has all that rubber gone ? Into the environment of course and as a dangerous particulate is far worse that the greenhouse gases.
Dont forget the tamac wears as well!
Tarmac wear is proportional to the fourth power of the weight
Ie double the weight and wear increases 16 fold
So roads will wear out sooner with evs
M: Is your proposition a documented fact or a typical wild statement like we find so often posted on this site. By the way Jim, I’m not sure Ohm’s law says anything about heating effect does it?
Schneider Electric . . . Power Producers
https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/
Green car congress 05 September 2018 . . . Promotors of EV’s
Unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, electric vehicles experience a loss of energy during “refueling,” with an energy loss of about 16% from the wall power to the battery during charging. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/09/20180905fotw.html#:~:text=Unlike%20conventionally%20fueled%20vehicles%2C%20electric,to%20the%20battery%20during%20charging.
Research . . . Science . . .
My Paper . . .
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/350-energy/today/electric-vehicles-and-batteries/3257-electric-cars-increase-energy-demand-31-percent-over-gas-cars?highlight=WyJqaW0iLCJsZSIsIm1haXN0cmUiLCJqaW0gbGUiLCJqaW0gbGUgbWFpc3RyZSIsImxlIG1haXN0cmUiXQ==
Then . . . Speak . . .
Vernon, any Scalextric racer knows that running an electric motor powered vehicle produces heat – sometimes lots of it. A burnt thumbtip is painful at any age but especially so at 12 years old!
Councils are already muttering that EVs cause more wear and the starting torque is damaging the surface of the road as tarmac is incapable of handling the force generated by accelerating a vehicle considerably weight away from a standing start, I have personally seen this happen.
As for heating effect of an electric current the formula is current squared times resistance, which is in fact Joule’s law.
“Tarmac wear is proportional to the fourth power of the weight”
As is tyre wear too, of course.
Vernon E
The 4th power of axle weight rule has been determined from long empirical observation and is well substantiated as a good approximation. I learned about it many years ago when I had involvement in selling bitumen alongside lots of other oil products. There are minor variations according to specifications (bitumen quality parameters include penetration – how far a standard steel needle penetrates a specimen at 25 C in a water bath when a 1kg weight is allowed to push it for 30 seconds, and the ring and ball test, which measures softening temperature by placing a brass ball atop a specimen that fills a brass ring, again held in a retort stand in a water bath, gradually heated until the ball drops through the ring forming a scrotal structure) and the nature of the roadstone it coats and the quality of the road foundations.
VernonE “By the way Jim, I’m not sure Ohm’s law says anything about heating effect does it?”
Ohm’s Law basics I = V/R where R stands for Resistance. Never heard of a resistance heater?
That ‘Resistance’ translates into ‘Heat’ in the surrounding environment to the resistance. Not found in the standard formula . . . Read . . . don’t Troll . . .
Ray S and Jim: I think it was actually Mr Joule who formulated H = I squared R.
I read the other day Lotus were claiming they would soon have a 100% electric product line. I wonder what the late Colin Chapman would have to say about that? He worked by the old engineers moto “Add lightness and simplicate”. Precisely the opposite of any modern EV…
That is correct, Dave. There is a car company out east in the ex-Soviet block that has gone back to the drawing board and re-thought the concept for their electric car from the ground up. I want one! 🙂
@ Vernon E – as I recall, Ohms Law says if you apply a potential of 1 volt across a 1 ohm resistance, 1 amp of current will flow and 1 watt of power will be dissipated.
Yes, Dave, and one watt flowing for one second is the SI unit of heat, the Joule. The heating effect is Joules Law. Jim, with all the extended drivel you post I suggest you might be a bit more circumspect about refering to “trolls”.
Drivel . . . Anybody else point out line loss? Anybody else point out charging loss ?
Some drivel . . I don’t need to count or measure ore even know the way to calculate it . . .
What counts is knowing that it is there and the EV propagandists do NOT want us to know it is relevant . . .
Do I recall correctly from my Scalextric racing days that full torque and power is available near enough instantly from an electric motor. This will also help to shred the tyres, especially if ‘the boy racer tendency’ has not yet left the driver, male or female.
To catweazle666,
In the USA the things you mentioned had different names, but yes, I remember them.
Living long is the crucial piece to knowing those times and those things.
If you use an image search on DuckDuckGo using this string
“interurban electric railways” there will be many images of the units.
Reports claim these were put out of business by those promoting rubber tires, gasoline, and internal combustion engines. Search for “General Motors streetcar conspiracy”
A milk float:
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/3348190467_e518a3a249_k-bf87d4e7376c4400af5a762ed12fe156.jpg)
They used to do their rounds in the early morning, and being electric were practically silent – apart from the clinking of the milk bottles, of course!
A trolley bus in Bradford:
I used them all the time when I was at university in Bradford, they worked really well because the city is in the Pennines and has a lot of steep hills, so the high torque was very handy for the frequent hill starts.
Much missed…
A Leeds tram:
The tramlines were lethal to motorcyclists!
All large Industrial Machinery run on Electric motors. Trains, Terex Trucks etc.. They have Diesel Generators onboard producing Electricity that run those engines . . . No ‘line loss’ that way . . . Ohm’s Law. Electricity produced on board . . . 100% goes to the engine. When coming from the grid 15% is lost.
May I recommend that anyone interested in this topic also reads this:
A mind boggling read Mark.
The idea that tyre wear gives 1,800 more particles than that a diesel engine is so big that it has to be an exaggeration, doesn’t it?
The comments that ‘air pollution causes millions of early death a year globally’ again seems to need a bit of proof – but if it is in The Guardian then it must be correct!
Just after reading your article I sat in my sunny garden and a road sweeper passed throwing up clouds and clouds of fine dust. I’m sure that many of the particles from tyres, brakes and tarmac will settle down onto the road surface, it will not all fly upwards. (And frequent road washing might help)
In passing, I’d like to give myself a pat on the back. My excellent 10 year old petrol driven Skoda Fabia is a lightweight vehicle and its doddery driver rarely uses the accelerator pedal.
Highway Code Rule 169. And 168.
Note also that tyre particles are a major component of the plastic microparticles that are currently a major source of concern to the environmentalists…
Who’s going to buy a used EV ?
Aren’t they going to devalue at a tremendous rate ?
Ex lease on the 2nd hand lot 3 or 4 years old may only have 4 years reduced range life left in the battery then its £20,000 or scrap !
Who would want it ?
Posed a question at the dealers couple of weeks back.
If you sold an ICE petrol or diesel and you told the prospective buyer that in 8 years time that the engine would require replacing do you think you would make a sale. ?
(Smirks all around)
Surely massive devaluation should be built into the lease costs or are they expecting the person who purchases 2nd hand to be totally ignorant and take the hit ?
Are EV’s (& possibly Hybrids) going to be a totally disposable throw away item ?
Yes , I read a while back that a careless charging regime for EVs compromises battery life and range so much so that a new battery may be required after 5 years. Then , as you say , it is a new battery or scrap. Meanwhile I will expect 10+ years from my i.c. VW and at least 150K miles.
I saw an electric Aston Martin parked outside the gym this morning. I felt quite sad.
https://www.denenapoints.com/relationship-vehicle-weight-road-damage/
……….A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that the road damage caused by a single 18-wheeler was equivalent to the damage caused by 9,600 cars. (GAO: Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Afford) The study seems to have based its calculations around the number of axles per vehicle. The study found that essentially, road damage was related to the 4th power of the relative loads. That means that if one vehicle carries a load of 1,500 pounds per axle and another carries a load of 3,000 pounds on each axle, the road damage caused by the heavier vehicle is not twice as much, but 2 to the 4th power as much (2x2x2x2 = 16 times as much road damage as the lighter vehicle).
Or where an 80,000-pound 18-wheeler full of cargo is compared to a 4,000-pound passenger car, the truck is 20 times heavier than the car. But taking the 4th power of the relative loads, the semi would cause 160,000 times more road damage than the car. (But my simple calculation is not taking into account the effect of any weight distribution caused by the greater number of axles on the big rig.)
So let’s compare a passenger car and a bicycle instead, both with two axles. Say the bike and its rider weigh in at 200 pounds, and the car at 4,000 pounds. The weight of the car is also 20 times greater than the bike and rider, and the road damage caused would be 160,000 times greater……….. more
I do the sums like this:
Cruising is 4×17,000lb + 12,000lb, giving 104,257 million lb^4
vs the SUV at 2×2,000lb giving 32 million lb^4
Of course an early Fiesta weighs in at only about 925lb per axle, which is 1.464 million lb^4
I suppose you should add 75lb per axle for a driver of the Fiesta, which would make it 2 million lb^4.
The linked article says that new tyres were required at 28,000 miles. Maybe I’m out of touch but that doesn’t seem excessive for (probably) a heavy, powerful car – especially as the author admits that he failed to rotate the tyres to balance the wear.
As for brake wear, it is much less for an EV than an ICE car because of regenerative braking. Quite a few of the latest models make a feature of “one-pedal driving” where both acceleration and braking are controlled by the throttle – up to the limit of regen, obviously.
If anyone wants some insight into the ownership and use of EVs, there’s a good forum on the Pistonheads website:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/forum.asp?h=0&f=247
Its threads cover a mass of topics, including all the headline issues like range, charging speeds, battery life, etc.
The concept that manufacturing a two ton vehicle as personal transport and then replacing it every few years is somehow environmentally friendly and sustainable is bonkers. The most environmentally friendly and sustainable powered personal transport with four wheels is probably a kitcar manufactured from scrap vehicles; perhaps with sophisticated fuel injection and electronic ignition.
Motorcycles can offer powered personal transport that has a negligible impact on the environment, particularly older bikes.
28000 miles pretty good for a set of tyres I thought!
I’ve now lost 4 tyres to potholes in 3 years despite my best attempts to avoid them.
Kinda depends on the size and quality of the tyres. Small wheeled cheap tyres will not last as long as big quality ones. My wife’s Hyundai i20 managed over 50,000 on two of its Michelins but she does drive like a saint. Whereas I (like IDAU) seem to pick up punctures with endless regularity and end up scrapping tread.
In the Dutch language, EV stands (rightfully joking) for “emissie verplaatsen”, which means something like “to move emission to another place”. And that is true. Electric vehicles in most countries move the emission from the exhaust of a car to the smokestack of a coal, oil or gas powerplant.
Simpleflied model… electricity is generated by a mix of nuclear, oil, gas coal and renewables. In counties with nuclear, these plants run at a contant level. Renewables are intermittent, unpredictable and variable; they are always used to the max. And leftover electricity demand is created with the fossil fuel plants. Any (new) EV added to the grid to charge is therefore charging on fossil fuels.