Now You Know Explains Why Adam Fails To Ruin Everything About EVs- Video

2 months ago by Eric Loveday 59

YouTube channel “Now You Know” does an excellent job of debunking the recent “Adam Ruins Everything” episode (we’ve debunked it once already here) in which Adam took cheap shots at Tesla and electric cars in general.

The argument presented by Adam is one we’ve heard and shot down several times in the past. It’s the dirty coal-powered electric car argument that’s becoming more and more outdated and increasingly incorrect as nation’s around the globe work feverishly to clean up grid power.

Here’s the video description (titled “Adam FAILS to Ruin Tesla”) from “Now You Know”:

“On today’s episode of Now You Know, Zac & Jesse take on the most recent episode of Adam Ruins Everything about Tesla! We take a closer to look at Adams argument against Tesla and put it to the test. And in the end, Zac & Jesse ruin everything!”

Here’s the original “Adam Ruins Everything” video, which has gone viral with nearly 2 million views.

Tags: , , , ,

59 responses to "Now You Know Explains Why Adam Fails To Ruin Everything About EVs- Video"

  1. William says:

    “The efficiency of your car is small potatoes”. Also in the “NEWS” recently, “Bull POOP, is Not Steer Manure”! Tell that to self check out clerk at your local Home Depot, while plowing through the lane, with a loaded cart full of 1 CF $1.27 / Steer Manure Blend Sacks.

    The entire operating costs (“small potatoes”) of driving, are directly related to the efficient operation of your propulsion system. And that goes for the entirity of the systems inputs and maintenance.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “The entire operating costs (‘small potatoes’) of driving, are directly related to the efficient operation of your propulsion system.”

      Well said, sir, and thank you!

      I sometimes roll my eyes when I read the assertion from fool cell fanboys that “efficiency isn’t important”.

      I have this urge to tell them that, next time they fill up their gasmobile, after they’ve filled the tank, they should wedge the pump handle open, lay the handle down on the pavement, and let it run three times more gasoline than they put in their car. Hey, why not? The process of generating hydrogen and putting it through all the steps it needs to get into the fool cell car, waste about that much of the energy. If efficiency “isn’t important”, then fool cell fanboys shouldn’t care how much fuel they waste!

  2. speculawyer says:

    NICE. They deserved to be slapped down hard for all that misinformation.

  3. Kosh says:

    Math and Science are hard! Let’s go shopping!

  4. Kdawg says:

    “Here’s the original “Adam Ruins Everything” video, which has gone viral with nearly 2 million views.”
    ———–
    And sadly this response video won’t get nearly the views, while Adam’s video will be used for years by the anti-EV crowd as “proof” EVs are bad.

    1. M Hovis says:

      Could be worse. Check out this e-mail forwarded by a friend.
      Highlights:
      $1.16/kWh electricity.
      Average home with 100 Amp service.
      Volt = $46K vs Avg ICE = $15K

      Don’t know how accurate this is…

      At a neighborhood bbq, I was talking to a Neighbor, a BC Hydro executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles,
      he pointed out, you had to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service.

      The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than 3 houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.

      This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles … Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So as our genius elected officials ram this nonsense down our collective throats, not only are we being forced to buy the damn things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This latter “investment” will not be revealed until we’re so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an oops and a shrug.

      If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the below:

      Note: However, if you ARE the green person, read it anyway. Enlightening.

      Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors…and he writes…For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine. Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the
      battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

      It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

      According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the
      seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

      The gasoline powered car costs about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000………So the American Government wants proud and loyal Americans not to do the math, but simply pay 3 times as much for a car, that costs more than 7 times as much to run, and takes 3 times longer to drive across the country…..

      There is a Dylan line from “Blood on the Tracks” that fits perfectly here.
      “You’re an Idiot babe, it’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe.”

      1. Dr. Miguelito Loveless says:

        Huh? $1.16 kWh? Where?

        The U.S. average is 12 cents, the most expensive places being CA and HI (40-55 cents on peak). I live in NC and pay about 11 cents for grid power, and 5.5 cents for power from my solars array (expected output over 25 years divided by cost of array). So, driving my Volt is 2-3 cents a mile in electric mode depending on source, whereas my ICE is about 8 cents a milse.

      2. Evz3 says:

        1000kwh is 70-100 dollar/euro for Big energy consumers.. Groupon?

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        M Hovis said:

        “This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles … Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load.”

        Sad to see this kind of blatant, aggressively fact-free anti-EV FUD being posted on InsideEVs.
        🙁 🙁 🙁

        I suppose if the Internet had existed during the generation when people were, for the first time, installing central air conditioners in homes and businesses, there would likewise have been FUD about Oh My Gawd — the electric grid will collapse if people keep installing air conditioners!

        In the real world, it’s the job of the electric utilities to upgrade the system where necessary. In fact, I’ve seen it said that the upgrade necessary to convert to EVs won’t be any steeper than the upgrade that near-ubiquitous central air conditioning required in the past. And of course, the increase in demand will be gradual; it’s not like everybody is going to go out and buy a PEV (Plug-in EV) on the same day, just as people didn’t all install central A/C on the same day.

        Oh, extra FUDdite points for the simply crazy claim of $1.16 for a kWh of electricity! 🙄 There isn’t any State in the USA where the cost is that high. The national average is 12.45¢ for residential service, and 12.72¢ for commercial. The highest average State cost reported by the U.S. Energy Information Agency is 27.54¢, for Hawaii, and if I recall correctly, there have been reports of over 30¢ in some regions of New York… which would still be about 1/4 of the cost claimed in that FUD!

        https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a

        1. M Hovis says:

          This is a “repost” of an e-mail. The font was supposed to separate my comments from the email. Yes, this was the most incredible FUD I have ever seen and wanted to share so people outside our community see what is being said out there.
          I highlighted what I considered to be the most offensive. I also closed with what was utter nonsense. Sadly, this was a real email that was being passed around.

          1. ffbj says:

            Yeah, well, one would expect that a person making a response to your comment would have read the first line where you say it was an e-mail from a friend.

            1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

              Pu-Pu was too busy getting up on his soap box to read the first line.

        2. mx says:

          The industry has been a shrinking business from efficiency improvements in Refrigerators, Air-Conditioner, and lighting, even electric hot water heaters now have hybrid models. This is the only thing that has come along in 20 years that increases demand.

          There is no sane utility exec sweating the coming EV revolution. They Applaud It.

        3. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          Pu-Pu said:
          “Oh, extra FUDdite points for the simply crazy claim of $1.16 for a kWh of electricity! 🙄 There isn’t any State in the USA where the cost is that high.”

          In NYC the electric rates can be slightly higher at $1.20 per kWh on a Time-of-Use plan.

          https://www.coned.com/en/save-money/energy-saving-programs/time-of-use

      4. McKemie says:

        75 amps is nice for charging a Tesla but not necessary. An over night charge can be done on 20-30 amps.

        1. mx says:

          And most homes have 200 amp service.

      5. Bill Howland says:

        I totally disagree. Canadian Utilities for some strange reason bend over backwards for Tesla owners specifically. Perhaps they are afraid the customer will not buy electricity from them if they are ever so slightly ‘sleighted’. I’ve heard cases in Toronto of the Utility putting in a larger substation just so “S” owners could each charge at 80 amps all at the same time.

        My Utility at one time surely would not do this, nor would many others.. At one time they’d say it was a “Commercial Application”, and convert you from residential rates back when commercial rates were much higher. Now, in general in NYState, its residential rates that are much higher.

        Many reading this article charge their own EV’s with a 15 ampere GM Round Coily-COrded Voltec that they got with their early Volts, or their friend’s Volts.

        3000-3600 watts is plenty for the average driver even for a BEV including all Teslas.

        If you plug in overnight, you’ll get an additional 100 miles of range easily added to whatever was remaining in the car before charging.

        That is plenty for everyone except service techs and travelling salesmen.

        I suppose 60 amp electric services that at one time used to be the most popular are starting to fade or be upgraded, but many smaller homes still might have them and I certainly wouldn’t discourage anyone who wants an ev from getting one. Most Volt owners don’t do anything other than plug into whatever they can find, and, I bet alot of BOLT owners do the same thing because they just don’t want to be bothered, and if 110 is enough to add a few miles per day then they’d consider that that is good enough since they don’t drive 300 miles every day, and the weekdays give plenty of time for the battery to recouperate for the next weekend.

  5. jimijonjack&jill says:

    This Adam is like a shameless Prostitute, Pay him, and he will say anything you want hear..

    1. Kdawg says:

      There’s a whole group of people that do this. It’s called “acting”. Many of them are located in the city named “Hollywood”.

      1. philip d says:

        True but most people know that Iron Man and the Hulk aren’t real.

        1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

          What’s next, are you going to tell me that reality TV isn’t real? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        2. John C says:

          Wait. Iron man’s not real ?!

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Of course he’s real! Elon Musk had a cameo in “Iron Man 2”.

      2. jimijonjack&jill says:

        Nice Dawggy…

      3. William says:

        For very short periods of time the “Hollywood Sign” has been retrofitted in the past, to spell “Hollyweed”. Here in LA “La La Land”, we reefer to it as the correct spelling for Tinseltown!

        1. Kdawg says:

          I prefer “Hollyweird”

  6. Scott Franco says:

    Its a good response video.

    Too bad they could not resist taking a dual political swipe at the standard liberal goto hotwords, war for oil and fracking.

    Libtards, bad news. Fracking solves the need for the former, and that was made up in any case. Or how much oil did we get from Iraq? Afganistan? Vietnam? Pllllease.

    1. Marshal G says:

      Speaking of “hotwords” how are you guys’ “War on Coal” and “War on Christmas” going? Are you winning?

      1. J P DeCaen says:

        Tough trench warfare, but we are hatching a plan to kidnap Santa and release him only if they shut down a dozen coal mines.

        1. speculawyer says:

          We were able to get some intel out of an elf that we captured and tortured:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvWpaneqvsQ

          1. Kdawg says:

            That elf did some hard time too.

    2. Nick says:

      > Libtards ….

      And now for a well considered exchange of ideas. 😀

    3. speculawyer says:

      Afghanistan and Vietnam had nothing to do with oil (9/11 and communism, respectively).

      Iraq certainly was related to oil. And just because they did not succeed in getting oil out of Iraq, that doesn’t mean they didn’t want to. Dick Cheney did get caught with those oil maps and from the conservative group Judicial watch.
      http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/cheney-energy-task-force-documents-feature-map-of-iraqi-oilfields/

      1. mx says:

        Vietnam was about oil. It was discovered close to the Viet coast in the South China Sea before the war. You’d need off shore drilling to get to it. Vietnam is now drilling there.

        http://oilgasvietnam.com/post/97/Industry-Facts.html

    4. Dr. Miguelito Loveless says:

      You lost me with “Libtards”.

      1. ffbj says:

        A slam on liberals put a bas instead of an lib and you will get it. I love the ‘Wild Wild West’ reference. I would call it a conflation of words, another sign of the decline of western civilization, when people starting making combernations of words to form a new word, which is not a word at all.
        I hate it as it’s not the Queen’s English.

    5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Scott Franco said:

      “Libtards, bad news.”

      Scott, I generally find your posts to be worth reading. Sorry to see you starting this one with a broad-spectrum political pejorative that’s bound to tick off probably more than half the readers here. I thought you were better than this. 🙁

      “Or how much oil did we get from Iraq? Afganistan?”

      Since you apparently missed the chain of cause-and-effect, let me spell it out for you:

      1. The U.S. established mutual defense treaties with Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries in the Mideast. This included establishing several military bases in Saudi Arabia and other Arabian countries, eventually surrounding and threatening another oil-rich country, Iran. (The startlingly high number of U.S. military bases and airports close to Iran, or even on the border, is shown on the map linked below).

      2. Iraq invaded Kuwait, looting the country and taking over the oil fields.

      3. The George Bush Sr. administration decided to invade Iraq, partly to free up control of Kuwait oil, partly to protect Saudi Arabia from the threat of Iraqi aggression, and partly in the (clearly naive, in hindsight) hope that we could reduce the number of troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

      4. A son of a Saudi billionaire with close ties to the Saudi royal family, Osama Bin Laden, became so offended at the “infidel” troops on American military bases “polluting the holy soil” of Saudi Arabia that he founded the al-Qaeda terrorist group, and tried twice to blow up the World Trade Center. The second time, he succeeded.

      5. The U.S. responded, arguably quite properly, by attacking the al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. But then, unfortunately, the Bush Jr. administration used the 9/11 attack as an excuse to invade Iraq a second time, partly because Bush Jr. was angry that the Iraqi had conspired to assassinate his father after the first Gulf War, and partly because the Saudis help support the U.S. debt by loaning us back some of the oil money we pay them… and the Saudis were again concerned with the threat from Iraq.

      So you see, Scott, yes it does all go back to oil. If it wasn’t for oil, we never would have had any military bases in Arab countries, and not a single one of this sequence of events ever would have happened.

      “Vietnam? Pllllease.”

      Wut? That’s rather a non-sequitur. Have you, perhaps, drunk too much of the fake news Kool-Aid from the Hard Right? I’ve never heard it claimed that the Vietnam War had anything to do with oil resources.

      * * * * *

      Web page with map showing U.S. military bases and airports in regions surrounding Iran:

      https://notesonliberty.com/2012/02/23/yes-jacques-delacroix-iran-is-surrounded/

    6. mx says:

      Isn’t the US 7th Fleet in the Gulf?
      That’s real dude. Those are real destroyers, cruisers, and air craft carriers, subs and jets.

  7. Bacardi says:

    Like I said in the original article, ask the average Joe what is the source of his towns/cities electricity and the overwhelming majority doesn’t know…

    A directly related coal plant topic is Carbon Capture…South Houston’s is a retrofit, makes existing plants cleaner and is already online; they claim they capture 30,000 tons of carbon a day or the equivalent of 1.8M cars…Mississippi’s approach has been delayed yet is somewhat promising…Requires “processing” the coal before it’s burned…

    Many theorize in order to get any future coal plant approved it will need to have carbon capture…

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      The reason why no new coal plants in the U.S. have been built within the past several years, and that some have either been shut down or converted to natural-gas-fired plants, is because natural gas is now significantly cheaper, and coal can no longer compete on cost.

      It has nothing to do with “clean coal” tech, which last I read, was just greenwashing by the coal industry, and wasn’t actually being used in any operational power plant.

      So if you could provide an authoritative neutral source of info on that South Huston plant (a source of info not dependent on funding from the company which runs the plant), I’d appreciate it.

      1. Bacardi says:

        “if you could authoritative neutral source of info on that South Huston plant (a source of info not dependent on funding from the company)”

        I’ll pass the task back to you as you’ll probably have more fun searching for it…

        You’re missing the overall point…Adam ruins everything states EVs who get their electricity from coal are just as dirty as ICE vehicles…We know multiple studies debunk this but let’s let his argument stand for the moment…The coal plant is claiming UP TO 90% of carbon is captured…Even if that’s grossly overestimated and let’s say over the course of the year it’s more like 10% of an overall average over the span of a year, despite electricity being fueled by coal it’s still cleaner than an ICE vehicle…

        Is carbon capture enough? No…But it’s already enough to debunk Adam’s already questionable argument…

      2. Doggydogworld says:

        Natgas is not “significantly cheaper” than coal. Natgas runs $3-4/mmBTU these days. Appalachian coal is $1.60-2.00/mmBTU ($40-50/ton). Powder River Basin coal is about $0.60-0.70/mmBTU.

        Even with lower O&M costs, natgas is still not cheaper than coal. But it is “cheap enough” that coal’s cost advantage no longer justifies the political hassles.

      3. Bill Howland says:

        SacPower in Saskatuan (sp?) runs a small Carbon Capture plant. Unless they ultimately use the stored CO2 for well drilling, ….. well everyone knows what I’d say next. It runs at about 2/3 the efficiency of an ultrasupercritical plant.

  8. G2 says:

    Good rebuttal.

  9. Bill Howland says:

    Around half the people in the US don’t care how much CO2 comes out because they don’t believe it is a polutant, seeing it rather as one of the key “Building Blocks of Life”, or plant food. Me included.

    And I’ve purchased 4 electric cars, and produce around 100% of the electricity I need for the year, but then again, I’m frugal with all my utilities so that I don’t really need too much of anything and my solar system isn’t unbelievably huge for this reason.

    But, like half the people in this country, my favorite fuel is coal, and I’m sorry that the big coal plant in my town has shut down for good, due to political reasons.

    Coal, incidentally, won’t see a decrease in usage world wide until around 2040.

    Which absolutely none of the ADAM videos and the rebuttals think CO2 is a ‘dangerous polutant’ which no Scientist from 50 years ago would agree with that statement. They will now though if they want to keep seeing a paycheck. That is a powerful consensus generator motivator.

    1. Nick says:

      I wish the world you live in matched reality. I really do.

      It would make things SO much easier and nicer.

      Alas, wishing it doesn’t make it so. The atmosphere doesn’t care if you believe in climate science or not. 🙁

    2. David Cary says:

      Now Bill – is your favorite fuel coal? And you think 50% of Americans agree with you?

      Where are you going with this? You like mercury, acid rain, coal ash? Even if you think CO2 levels have no effect on the planet, coal is a really horrible thing to burn.

      I mean to deny that is pretty absurd. If you do deny that coal is pretty nasty, that is pretty interesting.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        Yup, Scrubbers remove 98% of Sulfer Dioxide, and 90% of Mercury. The Gypsum remaining is sold to drywall companies – at least amoungst the properly run privately owned plants.

        This is just the ‘Blood-letting’ issue of the 21st century – and it is pretty much on a dung heap right now since George “Save the Planet” Soros’ view of the world is fading fast.

        The actual issue is too complex to address any more than superficially on a Car Blog. I just mention it since you guys always make the assumption that everyone agrees with you, certainly ALL electric car owners, and I happen to know that is not true.

    3. Nemo says:

      Science has made a lot of progress in 50 years; but in fact, I once read about the greenhouse effect — specifically, as due to carbon dioxide pollution — in a book by Dr. Isaac Asimov, dated 1960. And he wasn’t making some radical proposal at the time, just reiterating basic climate knowledge.

      I think I first heard about global warming around 1980, from Dr. Carl Sagan. (I read the Asimov book much later. I was just struck by its date — yes, we’ve known about it that long.)

  10. Timmy says:

    Refining a gallon of gas does NOT require 6kWh of electricity. This has been debunked many times in many places.

    I stopped watching right there, in spite of the fact that I’m an EV advocate. Disinformation does not help when you are trying to debunk other falsehoods!

    Also, just because you have solar panels does not mean that you “charge your Tesla” with zero-carbon electricity.

    1. tosho says:

      How much does it require then? If you don’t give a number your comment is pointless. If the oil industry does not want to give the numbers for the “long tailpipe” of ICE cars, should not we also entirely ignore the “electricity comes from coal” anti-EV argument? Why should we treat EVs and ICEVs differently?

      1. Doggydogworld says:

        Refineries use very little electricity per gallon produced. In fact, some refineries generate electricity and feed the excess into the grid.

        Refining requires heat, which they get by burning the low-value fractions of each oil barrel. The amount of heat energy per gallon varies with refinery complexity, but the average is reasonably close to Pushmi’s 4.4 kWh number. EVs don’t run on heat energy, though. The idea that you’d burn “oil bottoms” to generate electricity to feed to an EV is absurd as is the entire meme of “my EV can drive XX miles on the energy used to refine a gallon of gas”. It’s just completely non-sensical and meaningless.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Yes , you are getting into the issue I’ve given up on, in that somewhere between the energy in the ‘oil bottoms’ and a charged EV battery is there must be a less than 50% efficient ‘prime mover’ in the middle.
          But no one wants to deal with just a slight amount of complexity so I’ve stopped trying to explain the difference.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Refining a gallon of gas does NOT require 6kWh of electricity.”

      It does, however, take about — if I recall correctly a recent estimate — 4.4 kWh of energy to refine that gallon of gasoline. Energy mostly in the form of burning gases and waste products with little or no commercial value, but which certainly do emit pollution — and CO2 — when burned. The 6 kWh figure is outdated; newer refineries are estimated to be somewhat more efficient… but not all that much better.

      Unfortunately the energy usage must be estimated, because the oil industry doesn’t make those figures public. Gee, I wonder why they don’t want to admit how much energy is spent, nor how much pollution is emitted, in refining gasoline… /snark

      The fact that the energy comes mainly from burning waste by-products of petroleum refining, and mainly not from electricity at most refineries, doesn’t in any way alter the fact that using that much energy in the refining process produces quite a bit of pollution. That pollution is, unfortunately, generally not included in the (poorly researched, for the most part) well-to-wheel pollution comparisons between gasmobiles and electric cars.

      Oh, and if that 4.4 kWh of energy was used to power an electric car, it would go about 13.7 miles. That’s ~49% of the distance that a typical 28 MPG gasmobile can go on one gallon of gas. And that’s not even counting the energy contained in that one gallon of gas which the 4.4 kWh of energy was used to refine… nor all the the pollution generated when that gallon is burned in a gasmobile!

      Big Oil propaganda is well-funded and widely spread. The idea that somehow powering an electric car could possibly generate anywhere near the amount of pollution that powering a gasmobile does… Well, let’s just say that Big Lies did not die with Adolph Hitler.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        Big Deal. If refineries (taking your number) use 15,000 BTU to make 125,000 BTU of gasoline, that ain’t so bad – they are performing a ‘value added’ function.

        You can’t take that 4.4 kw and use it to charge a BEV anymore than I can take my marginal cost 1 1/2 cent /kilowatt-hour (a unit of energy) natural gas from my gas utility and use it to provide 1 kwh of driving distance in my electric cars.

        If it were trivially easy to do, everyone would cancel their Electric Utility Service which charges 10-12 cents for residential rates per KWH.

        The price difference is getting so striking, that I DO fully expect MORE residential customers to start making electricity on their own at a ‘loaded’ cost of 7 cents per kwh, using the 1 1/2 cents/kwh as their ‘base fuel’.

        What we have already defacto done in my area, is convert any necessary appliance (In my home I have 8 gas appliances) that uses any relatively substantial amounts of heat to be run as much as possible on this cheap natural gas. If there were a decent home refueler on the market other than that expensive, unreliable PHILL thing, I’m sure many people would be driving CNG cars.

        But that is why in my ‘market’, Clothes dryers in Loew’s and Home Depot are 100% Gas. Electric Dryers are special order since only rural customers with no access to utility methane buy them, by and large.

    3. Nick says:

      > Also, just because you have solar panels does not mean that you “charge your Tesla” with zero-carbon electricity.

      Why not?

      1. Brian says:

        Because it takes energy and resources to make the solar panel (and a little) to ship and install it. It’s better in the long term for sure, but not zero either (even if they were solar powered, the panels have mined materials, production work on those materials, the factory to build it).

      2. Doggydogworld says:

        The energy embedded in PV manufacture and install is not large, but it’s not zero.

        The real issue is most people don’t feed PV kWhs into their EV. Their panels feed into the grid during the day while the EV is at work or out running errands. Then, at night, the EV drinks a grid mix of coal, natgas, nuclear, etc.

        The smart move for high sun regions (e.g. SW US) is to install tons of $1/W utility-scale PV and feed the excess mid-day output into EVs in office and commercial parking lots. The EVs then power their owner’s homes during the evening demand peak. Forget about $3-4/W residential rooftop, ultra-expensive Powerwalls and the like (except for enthusiasts who want to spend their own money on such things, of course).

        Unfortunately most EV/PV fans are so full of grid-hate it blinds them to the bigger picture.

  11. Lindsay Patten says:

    It would have been better if they hadn’t switched from the “hybrid car” that Adam was comparing to, to the “average US vehicle” when doing their calculations

Leave a Reply