Firstly, it has to be stated that there is no 'Climate Change', 'Climate Emergency' or any other problem with global climate. The weather changes all the time and the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not causing the planet to warm up in the slightest. In fact, the current level of just over 400 parts per million of CO2 has been causing a 'greening' of arid areas, for instance with the Sahara Desert area acquiring more plant life and nations experiencing larger and more abundant crops. There is no downside to more CO2 in the atmosphere.
So the reason for this push to reduce anthropogenic CO2 is crazy, considering that there is not one shred of empirical evidence to show that human emissions of CO2 are causing anything. In fact the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 is just one-hundredth of one percent, meaning that such a microscopic amount of this vital life-giving gas cannot possibly affect the climate in any way. It is really insane that the pushers of the great "Climate Change Scam' are trying to convince the world that this microscopic one-hundredth of one percent of human-emitted CO is going to drastically increase global warming, while totally ignoring the other 99.000% of the atmosphere, including the two factors that really do control the climate - the sun and evaporation of water.Of course the real reason for this bogus 'Climate Change' scam is for certain parties to make trillions of dollars from subsidies for so-called 'Renewable Energy' sources, most of which are not renewable at all. Solar panels and wind turbines are manufactured using fossil fuel energy, because renewable energy simply cannot produce enough power. There is really no valid reason to convert to so-called 'Renewables' from fossil and nuclear power.
Yes, electric cars such as the Tesla series are fabulous vehicles, but they are only viable when there are relatively few of them on the roads. If everybody drove electric cars, the electricity grid system would completely collapse. It's one thing to have one Tesla in a street of 50 houses. It's an entirely different matter to have 75 Teslas in a street with 50 houses, assuming that every second house has two electric cars. From where is all that charging power going to come? Here is the math for the almost affordable Tesla 3 that is charged by a Tesla supercharger.
By comparison, it takes just two minutes to top up a petrol tank in the average sedan. Then there is the matter of finding a Tesla supercharger, which are few and far between in 2021. And if people think that they will save money by purchasing an electric car, they are sadly mistaken. Again, here is the math in 2021 in round numbers:
The above figures relate to charging that Tesla 3 at a supercharger. Most people will charge their electric cars at home, but the amount of grid power is limited. The average house consumes around 10 KwH to 15 KwH per day. Plug in a Tesla 3 to charge from 50% overnight and the amount of electricity blows out to over 50 KwH that the car owner has to pay for.
But people think - hey, I've got solar panels and they will provide the electricity to charge my car. WRONG. The average solar panel system being installed in 2021 is between 6 KwH to 10KwH. How the hell can even a top tier 10 KwH solar panel system charge a Tesla that requires 38 KwH to top it up from half-capacity? And what about the household electricity needs at the same time?
All this is assuming that the solar panels are getting 100% direct sunlight and are producing around 40 KwH per day, which they do not. A slight bit of cloud and solar generation falls by half. On an overcast or rainy day, the home owner will be buying electricity from the grid, as he sees his solar panel yield drop to under 10 KwH. How do I know? It's because I have a near-10 KwH top tier system operating with micro-inverters, the most efficient setup. And I have experienced many consecutive overcast days where my fancy solar system didn't produce even enough to power my house and I had to purchase electricity from the grid. I would not have had enough solar power to charge a household battery, let alone charge an electric car.
OK, so let's assume that a Tesla 3 is going to be charged 50% from the grid and 50% from a supercharger. Here is the math in round numbers.
By comparison to the real cost of driving a Tesla 3, a rival BMW 330i costs $8.00 per 100 km assuming an average cost of premium unleaded of $1.38 in 2021. The BMW is cheaper to fuel than a Tesla 3 is to recharge. But none of this has factored in the additional cost of replacing a battery on a Tesla 3 when the original battery dies, as it certainly will. In 2021, the cost of a Tesla Powerwall domestic solar battery was around $14,000 plus installation. And that is for a battery of 13 KwH capacity. The Tesla 3 battery is nearly SIX times the capacity of that Tesla Powerwall. So how much can it cost to replace a battery with SIX times the capacity of a battery that costs $14,000?
The sad truth is that as of 2021, it costs around $16,000 to replace that Tesla 3 battery and the price is obviously subsidised. The question is - for how long? Assuming that this replacement price will stay the same and the battery has an estimated lifespan of 8 years, that battery will cost the Tesla 3 owner around $2,000 per year. So assuming that the Tesla 3 owner drives an average of 10,000 km per year and 50% charging his car from superchargers and 50% from the domestic grid, he will spend $1,050 plus $2,000 per year - $3,050 excluding registration and other costs. Meanwhile, that BMW 330i will cost $800 in fuel. Even taking into account less servicing cost for the Tesla, the BMW is cheaper to operate. Even if the Tesla 3 is trickle charged every day at household electricity rates, that BMW is still cheaper to operate overall - and there's not the imposition of waiting for 30 to 60 minutes at a charging station.
This insane push to eradicate fossil fuel is driven entirely by the fiction that human emissions of CO2 is causing global warming. There's not a shred of evidence to support this, but like religion, people have just swallowed this nonsense and are making the perpetrators of this scam very rich in the process. Fossil fuel is abundant and cheap. It is a very efficient store of instant energy that can be replenished in the average vehicle in a minute or two, unlike charging electric vehicles. There is more than adequate fuelling infrastructure in the form of service stations everywhere and if it were not for the massive taxes and excise on fossil fuel, driving would be extremely cheap.
The bottom line is that electric cars are certainly not cheaper to operate than petrol or diesel cars and despite anything else, eradicating fossil fuelled cars will not do anything to the climate. The human race is being well and truly scammed by this mad rush to reduce anthropogenic CO2 that will do absolutely nothing except make a few Greenies feel better about their lunacy. But there you have it - the truth about electric cars.
With the increasing number of fully electric cars, we will see plenty of them parked by the sides of roads with flat batteries and being charged from diesel or electric generators. Or we will see them being charged at charging stations that are being supplied by fossil fuel, totally negating the idea of running these cars on renewable energy sources.