Tesla Owner Exposes Dark Secret About Electric Cars
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.
After boasting about the many ways electric vehicles are superior to traditional internal combustion-powered vehicles, Templeton noted that the need for new tires at short intervals was an undeniable drawback.
“The doozy was needing new tires at around 28,000 miles,” Temple wrote in his article “Electric Vehicle Maintenance Is Super-Cheap, But The Dark Secret Is Tires” published last month.
“That was too early, far before their rated life.”
The author confirmed that his electric vehicle’s additional heft coupled with the need for fancy low-noise, high-efficiency tires meant an expensive resource-gobbling purchase would always be just around the bend.
Templeton frames this as just one hiccup in an otherwise magical world of guilt-free driving that comes with owning an electric vehicle.
It’s similar to the way politicians like transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg suggested ordinary Americans purchase electric vehicles to avoid gas prices, while ignoring the $56,000 price tag that now seems to be just the opening of a money pit.
However, it’s becoming abundantly clear that the tradeoff of electric vehicles — lower environmental impact in exchange for a higher price tag — is even proving to be a bad deal in light of this revelation about the tires.
Frequently replacing the treads will have a significant environmental impact, both from the fossil fuels pulled from the ground to make them and because the wear and tear adds more harmful microplastics into the environment.
According to a 2019 article in National Geographic, modern tires are made in part from petroleum-based plastics that require between 7 gallons of oil to make a car tire and up to 22 gallons for truck tires.
Moreover, emerging research suggests that the tiny particles of these plastics shed from tires and the other myriad of household and industrial products could be the next environmental crisis in the making as they find their way into water supplies and wildlife.
This is just another dark secret in a list of many that have come to light when it comes to electric vehicles.
It’s now apparent that the pollution from mining for and disposing of the lithium batteries the vehicles require is another looming environmental problem greater than the one it was supposed to solve.
“Somehow, one of these is frowned upon (tar sands), but the other three- cobalt, nickel and lithium mines (necessary for EV batteries) are ‘green’?” Patrick De Haan, a petroleum analysis expert and author, wrote of the devil’s bargain environmentalists have made with the land-scarring process required for making batteries for electric vehicles.
Attempting to make the world a cleaner place by employing other innovative technologies to replace existing ones is a hallmark of modernity and often proves fruitful.
However, this technology has its own drawbacks that need to be studied and considered before consumers and governments go all-in on electric vehicles.
To ignore the problems created by electric cars while insisting they’re the superior option for the environment is to deny the reality that there really is no such thing as a free lunch — and the environmental cost is quickly adding up.
See more here: westernjournal.com
Header image: Forbes
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Eric the Red
| #
The primary issue is not tires; the primary issue is not environmental damage, although that one’s pretty bad. The primary issue has always been the following:
How much energy needs to be additionally centrally generated to replace the gasoline going into regular vehicles?
Where is all that additional energy coming from, because never in a million years will green energy be able to generate it.
To answer those questions, nobody seems to know how to do an engineering analysis using the laws of thermodynamics, which are inviolable. I guess the whole world has gotten more stupid over the last 50 years.
Reply
Jacque Millard
| #
Since the children of the U.S.haven’t been taught to think or learn for about that long the answer is yes they are that stupid
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Dear Eric – “More stupid” or better paid. The Google scientists who in 2014 stated windmills would never be cheaper than coal, while still employed at Google in 2021, recanted. They said prices were falling fast enough to change their minds and that catastrophe might be averted after all. But do consider the catastrophe.
About a decade ago, four physicists – Gerlich & Tscheuschner and Kramm & Diugi – published two papers debunking the execrable pap underlying the CAGWH. In the face of the relevant physics (mostly unknown and universally unheralded) the “danger” evaporates. The danger is worse than imaginary. It is shameless make-believe. It may be time to forgive Lord Rutherford and concentrate on advancing the controlling physics rather than circle wagons against a paper hobgoblin. See:
Gerlich, Gerhard, & Ralf D. Tscheuschner, “Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. “ International J. of modern physics B, v. 23, No.3 (2009), 275-364.
Kramm, Gerhard & Ralph Diugi, “Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact,” Natural Science, 17 Oct. 2011, v. 3, pp. 971-998. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2011.32124
Reply
Dave Walton
| #
Their is capacity in the UK for 20M cars to charge overnight.
Reply
Tom O
| #
Does that “capacity” also allow for normal life, such as heating and cooling, lights, washing and drying clothes, cooking food, etc? I would have to guess that the answer will be NO. People are supposed to just stop living while their cars recharge. Not only that, but I would also venture that there aren’t 20 million places in the UK that are wired to supply that kind of current, either.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Hahaha.. you’re huts! .. they are already rationing energy in the UK. [just shaking my head]
Reply
Howdy
| #
It isn’t a dark secret, and it doesn’t only affect EV. Any driver making use of the available power will wear the tyres putting the power down prematurely like any other vehicle, and surely anybody knows EVs are just about power output anyway. Nobody buys a tesla because it’s cheap and frugal.
Were reduced planetary impact the goal, the output would be sufficient to reach the projected goal and no larger. Just like all vehicles should be. As long as oversize engines, or motors/batteries, are driving oversize vehicles of oversize weight with ridiculous features that are found in the home, there is no worry about the planet. Otherwise things would move in a more frugal direction, right?
Easy answer is of course, self control from the driver, and the vehicle manufacturer….. To stop lying about why the vehicle needs to be as powerfull as it is for no reason other than greed would also surely help.
An IC vehicle will make noise and attract attention, where an EV does not. Perhaps that is part of the problem?
Reply
Tom O
| #
What to hell is the sense of having a vehicle if you can’t have fun with it? Life is intended to be enjoyed, not merely endured.
Reply
aaron
| #
lol got that in writing i hope
Reply
Ted
| #
The issue of rubber tire wear dust and particles is an important one, and I suspect it is being widely suppressed. Inhaling microplastics in busy cities as well as polluting the oceans with it is not what any car owner, EV or otherwise, likes to hear, even less the car and tire manufacturers. I fear that this rubber tire dust may even be contaminated with heavy metals, and contains proteins that can be a source of allergy reactions in people. More needs to be investigated in this whole area.
Reply
Howdy
| #
More powerfull cars will produce more Ted. Use smaller ones and rotate them more slowly. Reduce the acceleration load, as well as braking strength by lightening vehicles and reducing power.There’s also the point about brake disk and lining dust. This is easily visible on any car that has been used.
What about carbon from brushed motors, or belt dust fragments from the engine bay? Oil mist from drops when travelling at high speed? The list goes on.
Reply
Anglia
| #
I now no longer ever found out like it’s far even plausible but one (wdr99) in every of my confidant pal made $27,000 most effective inside 4 weeks simply finishing this smooth possibility and additionally she has prompted me to avail. up to date information on touring following website….
Reply
Maria Pace
| #
I was waiting to be able to afford a TESLA; however, I am now 77 years of age, and thought I did not have the time to save for a TESLA, on my Canadian Government’s Pension. So, I found myself a nice little COOPER(mini Mayfair – 50, and I am very happy with it. It’s cheap on gas, small enough to park anywhere, and came with a price tag for less than $10,000. Equipped with snow tires, and a warranty, I can afford. The insurance
is very reasonable, and it’s even computerized, who could ask for anything more?
Now all I need is for TRUDEAU to forget about GREEN ENERGY and OPEN UP THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE so Canadians can get a break on gas prices; and JOBS.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Good luck! .. Trudeau is literally Hitler reincarnated. You will own nothing and like it.
Reply
Joao
| #
Just a note:
electric cars = battery = more mass => E=mc² => More energy is needed, more energy => Pollute more.
And some of the cons of electric cars, called green.
– More polluting, battery cycle;
– Cobalt extraction, for EV battery, creates deaths through politicians;
– Higher weight = Lower performance, safety and energy/fuel savings;
– Early wear of the tires, comparing a vehicle that does the same miles;
– the weight of the battery is maintained while driving…unlike fossil fuels, it becomes lighter with consumption, which improves performance, safety and economy;
– 1Kg of Battery gives less miles than 1Kg Fossil Fuel;
– More mass = more pollution.
Reply
Dave Walton
| #
… and the dark secret is ….. Electric cars have tyres that wear. Who would have thought?
Reply
Tom O
| #
And here I thought they flew around on the wings of angels. then again, 80,000 mlle tires wearing out in 28,000 miles is something to consider. That isn’t pocket change, is it?
Reply
Lorraine
| #
Tesla asked Residents of Texas to avoid charging their vehicles during peak energy usage hours because… you know the drill possible brownouts. Oh really?
Imagine when the majority of vehicles will need recharging. Get ready for it.
Reply
Tom O
| #
To be totally honest, I really can’t imagine the majority of cars being EVs and requiring overnight charging if they are used for over 100 miles usage a day – sadly, a distance often used by commuters. I really can’t imagine that there are that many fools, but they have been trying for decades to ensure no one has an education, so maybe so. Of course, if the experimental injections work as well as many doctors claim, there may not be that many people left anyway.
Reply
Howdy
| #
The charging regime will be forced on people via firmware updates, so no choice really.
Reply
bmatkin
| #
The fun will really begin when the governments, seeking a new source of revenue, start taxing Evs per kilometer of road traveled. They need this cash to keep up the myths of universal health care and all the other socialist benefits.
Just think how much money is removed from taxpayers thru the automobile. Taxes on repair, parts, fuel, road use, fees, tolls, let alone the tax on the sale of the car in the first place and the sale of the used car maybe a few times.
The govt. encouraged everyone to switch to propane (years ago) and then immediately jumped the tax on auto propane. (which killed that market in about 5 months)
Reply