The beauty of this is that the more EVs on the road the more impact it will have to get away from fossil fuels based power stations. Change out a power plant and clean the entire grid including the transportation sector.

Also, coal makes up 19.7% of US energy and falling. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...-u-s-last-year

 

The Texas Public Policy Foundation seems credible.

 

A few people beat me to it, but I'll add a little more. If you're going to post an argument, get your facts right, and know who pays for your sources.

1. The Texas Public Policy Foundation is funded by the petroleum industry (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...ental-council/). Hardly surprising that they advocate against anything that might reduce petroleum consumption.
2. 90% of electricity in the US does not come from coal. 39.8% natural gas; 21.5% renewables (wind, hydro, biomass, solar, geothermal); 19.5% coal; 18.2% nuclear; 0.9% petroleum. I'll come back to that 0.9%; its important. (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...-in-the-us.php)
3. Every choice is about alternatives. You don't like the negative impact of mining for the materials for EV batteries (bad for the miners, bad for the environment)? Well, your alternative for transportation is Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, Saddam's intentional well fires of 1991, and more environmental and human horror caused by drilling for oil than I can possibly summarize here. Just as a for instance: https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...really-a-curse
4. The real argument for me is a national security one. Who are our primary adversaries? Russia, Iran, Terrorists, North Korea, and China. The first three are funded by oil, and are actively using those funds to launch wars in Ukraine and Israel. The fourth (North Korea) is propped up by Russian oil money and is shipping weapons to Russia to use in Ukraine. With a global market for petroleum, anything that increases consumption and raises the price adds to the resources of those who wish us harm.

I live in Pennsylvania, where electricity comes from basically the same sources as the national average. Natural gas, nuclear, coal, and a mix of renewables. Petroleum is 0.1%. When my wife tops up her Tesla in our garage (I calculated the cost based on our electric bill: only 41% the cost per mile of an equivalent gasoline vehicle), we don't give money to people who are actively trying to harm us.

I love my 110S. It does things EVs can't at this point in time. But when EVs can do what ICE offroad vehicles can do, I'll happily switch.

 

-I agree. I read a car review on the fully EV Rivian - it sounded great until the final words: the thing weights about what a Chevy Suburban weighs!? As you drive it around, the weight of the battery (because it's so big) wastes energy. How? Think of the amount of "wasted" energy the EVs use when the battery is half discharged? The EV is using lots of energy to cart around the heavy battery. The hybrid (used in 6 cyl Defender) seems perfect to me. The moon shot is something like hydrogen to charge a battery, but because of the hydrogen fuel source, the battery would be way smaller than what today's pure EVs suggest you lug around. Defender's mild hybrid accomplishes alot of benefits, without some of the problems that can be with pure EV.

 

The thing people seem to be overlooking here is that even though the battery weighs a lot, the EV powertrain efficiency more than makes up for it versus an internal combustion engine. It's just a plain fact that EVs are more energy and resource efficient. Then, when you take into account the new solid state batteries that Toyota is about to put in to play, they weigh half as much and store the same amount of energy as current EV batteries. The internal combustion engine is pretty close to tapped out, EVs are just getting started, especially battery technology.

 

The GM of our local Ineos dealer brought a Grenadier over to my home for a test drive yesterday.... I REALLY like this truck!

I would say it's more of a cross between an old Defender and a G Wagon... it is SOLID as a rock.

It's not as 'plush' as the new Defender (which I love and intend to keep) or as technology laden... it's super tactile and has a completely different personality. From what I've been told, there will be more aftermarket mods & accessories produced for the Grenadier in the first year than I've seen in 4 years of owning my 'new model' Defender.

 

One of the best UK magazines, Evo, just published their Grenadier review. It's not positive, and there are a lot of Grenadier/Defender comparisons made.

https://www.evo.co.uk/suvs/206286/in...ever-asked-for

Pictures

https://www.evo.co.uk/suvs/206285/in...eview-pictures

 

"The Defender we never asked for"

The Defender THEY never asked for

 

That review seems very biased and rather unfair considering they were calling out issues with a preproduction vehicle.

I can't understand their emphasis on steering. Given the design was chosen to favor off-road capability I don't see this as a problem but an inevitable consequence. Hardly a flaw.

I've not seen anyone on the FB group or anywhere complain about braking prowess. Seems to speak to the driver's lack of familiarity with the vehicle rather than anything else.

Clickbaity title too.

 

I’d have to agree. Having driven my Defender for just over 48,000 miles the seats are pretty flat and unsupportive. Actually prefer the seats in the Grenadier, but then I like a more bolstered seat. Not really sure why they’d be testing a prototype when they’ve been available outside the US for around a year now either.

On another note my Grenadier is at port here and should hopefully be at the dealer in the next few weeks for pickup so I’m biased.