Don’t put your pension into Greens, Mrs Worthington…

Starting at the same price, there’s a 10 to 1 gap in investment performance

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

… Don’t put your pension into Greens. “Greens” are what the City boys in red suspenders with East End accents you could cut with a machete and Porsches you could scratch with a convenient latch-key call renewable-energy stocks.  See the chart:

clip_image002

As Bjørn Lomborg points out in a recent devastating graph, if you had been scared enough by the hockey-stick fable in the IPCC’s 2001 Third Assessment Report to invest $100 in Greens in 2002, you would now be the proud owner of $28, or quite a bit less than that after inflation.

But if you had followed Monckton’s Rule of Merry and Profitable Investment – listen very carefully to what the Government tells you, do the exact opposite, wait a decade or so, then collect in spades – you would have invested your $100 in oil and gas stocks. And you would now have a billfold crammed with $238, or 1000% more than the hapless investor in Greens.

These are remarkable figures. Oil and gas corporations have had to face ever higher taxes and ever tighter regulations in the name of Saving The Planet. Greens have been subsidized to levels so absurd they’re beyond Communist. Even with the millstone of taxation, regulation and ministerial hate-speech, oil and gas stocks have done well. Even with frequent epinephrine overdoses of taxpayer subsidy and paeans of official praise, Greens – as the red-suspenders brigade would put it – are down the toilet.

That is a remarkable contrast. Not the least reason for it is that all forms of so-called “renewable” energy are monstrously, irremediably inefficient. Currently, my favorite example is the sappy UK Government’s subsidies to new electric autos.

Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric auto is – er – also 27%. However, the electric auto requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.

CO2 emissions from domestic transport account for 24% of UK CO2 emissions, and cars, vans, and taxis represent 90% of road transport. Assuming 80% of fuel use is by these autos, they account for 19.2% of UK CO2 emissions. Conversion to electric power, 61% of which is generated by fossil fuels in the UK, would remit 39% of 19.2%, or 7.5%, of UK CO2 emissions.

However, the battery-weight penalty would be 30% of 19.2% of 61%, or 3.5%, of UK CO2 emissions. So the net saving from converting all UK cars, vans, and taxis to electricity would be just 4% of UK CO2 emissions, which are 1.72% of global CO2 emissions. Thus converting all UK autos to electricity would abate 0.07% of global CO2 emissions.

But at what cost?

The cost to the UK taxpayer of subsidizing the 30,000 electric cars, vans, and taxis bought in 2012 was a flat-rate subsidy of $8333 (£5000) for each vehicle and a further subsidy of about $350 (£210) in vehicle excise tax remitted, a total of $260.5 million. On that basis, the cost of subsidizing all 2,250,000 new autos sold each year would be $19.54 bn. Though the longevity of electric autos is 50% greater than that of internal-combustion autos, batteries must be completely replaced every few years at great cost, canceling the longevity advantage.

The considerable cost of using renewable energy to bring down the UK’s fossil-fueled generation fraction from the global mean 67% to 61% is not taken into account, though, strictly speaking, an appropriate share of the very large subsidy cost of renewable electricity generation should be assigned to electric vehicles.

By contrast, what is the cost of doing nothing?

The Stern Report on the economics of climate change says 3 Cº global warming this century would cost 0-3% of global GDP. We’re not going to get 3 Cº warming, or anything like it, so make that, say, 1% of GDP.

But the cost of making global warming go away by methods whose unit cost per Celsius degree of global warming abated is equivalent to that of the UK Government’s mad subsidy for electric autos works out at 74% of global GDP. So it is 74 times more expensive to act today than to adapt the day after tomorrow. Oops!

In fact, the cost-benefit ratio may be even worse than this. Now that both RSS and UAH have reported their satellite-derived monthly temperature anomalies for February 2014, the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index can be determined, based on the simple mean of the two datasets since January 2005.

clip_image004

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report last year backdated the models’ projections to 2005, and reduced the central estimate of the next 30 years’ global warming by almost half from the equivalent of 2.3 Cº per century in the pre-final draft to the equivalent of 1.3 Cº per century in the final draft.

Even this much-reduced projection continues inexorably to diverge from the unexciting reality that global temperature has stabilized.

The brainier and more honest advocates of the official story-line know that events have rendered their demands for near-zero CO2 emissions no longer tenable.

Yet they continue to make their strident demands that the West should, in effect, shut itself down. They do so for the following interesting reason. They know that the high-sensitivity theory they said they were more sure about than anything else is nonsense. They know the world will warm by perhaps 1 Cº this century as a result of our activities, and that is all, and that is not a problem.

They also know that within not more than seven years the mean of all five global-temperature datasets may well show no global warming – at all – for 20 years. They know that if CO2 concentration continues to rise at anything like its present rate it will become obvious to all that they were spectacularly, egregiously, humiliatingly in error.

They have concluded, unsurprisingly but furtively, that their only way out is to insist that the science is even more settled than ever and that CO2 emissions must be cut even faster than before.

Then, when global temperature fails to rise as they now know it will fail to rise, they can say that the Pause has happened because CO2 emissions have been stabilized by the policies they so profitably demanded, rather than because the Pause would have happened anyway.

Indeed, one or two of the more flagrantly dishonest global warming crooks are already beginning to claim that the Pause is their doing. One has only to look at the ever-rising gray CO2 curve on the graph to see there is no truth in that.

However, the day of judgment is at hand. A fraud case is being quietly, painstakingly assembled, spanning three continents. When the last pieces of evidence have been carefully collected, half a dozen people will face trial for the serious, imprisonable offense of fraud by misrepresentation.

When that day comes, watch the rats who have over-promoted this profoundly damaging scare scurrying for cover in case they are next. Then, and only then, the scare will be over.

[ALL: Be aware that replies WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY go into the "Review" bin for specific moderator review IF they contain the word "fraud" ... (or meet certain other criteria.)
Since, on this thread, it is VERY LIKELY that the "fraud" word will be used or referenced in many replies, EXPECT DELAYS for your replies until they are accepted. Mod Team]

About these ads

155 thoughts on “Don’t put your pension into Greens, Mrs Worthington…

  1. Though the longevity of electric autos is 50% greater than that of internal-combustion autos, batteries must be completely replaced every few years at great cost, canceling the longevity advantage.

    The battery is effectively the engine so if you replaced the engine of an internal combustion engine every few years I’m sure it would last longer.

  2. I guess it depends on whether you consider the billions spent bombing Iraq to get US oil corporations a new risk-free dividend stream for 30 years a subsidy or not. Not to mention a few other previous exploits of that ilk……

    I would call it beyond communist but also beyond capitalist. Capitalists invest their own cash, they don’t ask others to sub them for the ground work then waltz off with the profits themselves.

    What you would do well to study is the oil industry’s Returns on Presidential Investments (ROPI).

    Usually, that is an investment without compare……..

  3. Another cost for the switch to all electric vehicles that you didn’t mention is the fact that the UK electrical system does not currently have the capacity to supply power to all those vehicles. So more power plants would have to be built to supply the electricity to run the vehicles. Then there is the question about if the electric grid would need upgrading to handle the increased load. And there would also have to be charging stations built to charge the vehicles since they won’t always be at home when they need more charge.

  4. I don’t think it has ever been about saving the world from “climate change”. The objective seems to be to control international economies by controlling the use of fossil fuels. CAGW is being used as an excuse to “justify” that process. Both the excuse and the process are a big failure.

  5. To Rhys Jaggar
    Point 1. The oil “liberated” from Iraq will never make it to the US. It will go to Europe, or China, or the Far East. And while American companies may generate profits from the extraction of that oil, it will never make it back to the US. So we in the US are fools for supporting this war, except many of us have protested our involvement in these wars, but the politicians do not listen to us.
    Point 2: The electricity used to recharge electric cars comes from nuclear plants, Many of which are leaking, or natural gas or coal fired plants, many of which have been shut down by our EPA, under policies outline by President Obama
    Any way you look, the industries and the elite that own them get preferential treatment from government, whether they be subsidies or preferential tax treatment.

  6. “Though the longevity of electric autos is 50% greater than that of internal-combustion autos,”

    Really?

    In over half a century of driving, the vast majority of my vehicles have succumbed to tinworm long before they expired due to mechanical deficiencies.

    So I can’t see how running off an electric motor is going to change that, and should it come down to it, I suspect that rebuilding an internal combustion engine is going to work out considerably cheaper than buying a new battery pack.

  7. I realise you like to give the benefit of the doubt to some of the alarmists claims then rip them to shreds any way. But the idea that an electric car lasts 1.5 times as long as a real one is absurd. A 7 year old Leaf will not be worth the replacement cost of its battery pack. Sure, technically it could still be classed as a “car”, (that does not move) for decades. I think it is a stretch of the imagination to think people will be restoring them to concours condition for shows. Electric cars will last one or two battery packs. By the there will be better alternatives (there already are.)

  8. Fascinating read.

    Sadly, I fear it won’t change any minds. The watermelons just don’t believe in the wisdom of the market. Those that do, don’t believe in the AGW scam.

  9. Please tell me this fraud suit isn’t just a wind up.
    However, isn’t the next scare already being drafted? I have been given to believe that atmospheric oxygen depletion is the new gullible warming.
    Of course it’s all our fault (due to human activities relying upon combustion) and has nothing whatsoever to do with energetic oxygen atoms continually escaping to space from the thermosphere.
    I reckon I’d better go and ask for a grant to model future long term oxygen depletion. and get a cast iron anti-liability agreement :)

  10. Looking forward to the legal case with relish.
    Driven by concerns for the diversion of taxpayers funds to the pockets of the market manipulators…The world has far better things of genuine benefit to mankind to work on…

  11. I suspect that the subsidies are actually working against the Greens. Although it provides a sweet short-term gain, it is not sustainable. As long as the greenies are living off the sugar subsidies, their health is suffering because they are not building up their strength with a well-balanced diet of free-market competition, innovation, and incentives.

  12. “…dishonest global warming crooks are already beginning to claim that the Pause is their doing.”

    Is there anything that could falsify global warming? No, and that is by design. But after a long search, I have finally found one thing that the magical molecule CO2 cannot do. It is incapable of lowering your taxes. I challenge anyone to refute me.

  13. DDPalmer: Your comment: “…the UK electrical system does not currently have the capacity to supply power to all those vehicles”

    But, but, but….you must know there is a plan afoot that will stop brown-outs and boost the grid by allowing electric vehicles to be raided for their power for general consumption. So that’s easy then: we won’t need more power stations when I can plug in my car and get it charged by the car plugged in down the road. /sarc

    Chris: It truly is a weird experience reading your post here, knowing how you speak perfectly sound Queen’s English, yet reading you with an American ‘accent’.

  14. The UK Farud Act 2006 is quite clear at Section 2 that:
    Fraud by false representation
    (1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
    (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
    (b)intends, by making the representation—
    (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
    (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
    (2)A representation is false if—
    (a)it is untrue or misleading, and
    (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

    See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

  15. “So more power plants would have to be built to supply the electricity to run the vehicles. … ”
    How about wind turbines and solar panels?
    Ok, ok, ok, just kidding….

  16. I look forward to that fraud case. I think I know who those in the dock will be, but whether I’m right or wrong, such a case will be vital. I hope it will be high profile with all the facts and figures and data torturing out in the open for the world to see. We need transparency. We need media to report it, even if it’s just some of them.

  17. The only Green on my mind these days is green Spring, which is peeking out from beneath it’s snowy white covers in all corners of my world.

  18. Al Gore has already moved out of Green Slime™ Energy

    …[I]f Al Gore has any message for investors today, it might very well be this: “Stay the hell away from alternative energy!”

    Not that he would say so. At least out loud…..

    his portfolio is top-heavy in high-tech, medical instruments, and even more pedestrian investments in companies such as Amazon (AMZN_), eBay (EBAY_), Colgate Palmolive (CL_), Nielsen (NLSN_), Strayer University (STRA_), and Qualcomm (QCOM_).

    He is also big in China, with stakes in a big Chinese travel agency, CTrip, and China’s largest medical equipment manufacturer, Mindray Medical.

    And if you want a piece of the natural gas pipeline game — heavily dependent on the environmentally suspect fracking — you can find that in Gore’s portfolio as well with Quanta Services (PWR_).

    Generation Investment even had a piece of Staples (SPLS_) at one point — but that was before anyone realized that was Mitt Romney’s love child.

    Not an Apple (AAPL_) to be found, despite the fact that Gore sits on its board of directors…. [snicker]

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/11727215/1/al-gore-walks-away-from-green-energy.html

    Best news I have heard in a LOOoooong while.

  19. The analysis to be fair needs also to consider the generous subsidies that the oil, natural gas and coal industries get from our governments. They are substantial and have been around for decades.

  20. Don’t put your pension into Greens, Mrs Worthington…

    Tut tut BBC pension scheme.

    [BBC Pension Scheme] – “Responsible Investment Policy”
    The Scheme is also a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and has signed up to their investor statement….

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/aboutthescheme/responsible.html

    So next time you read about their alarmist crap keep this bit of practicality in mind. Oh, the BBC pension fund can also be found investing in big oil companies, cigarette manufacturers, fossil fuel power generators, mining companies etc. This was done to demonstrate how concerned they are about global warming and lung cancer.
    ——
    BBC Pension – Top equity Investments at 31 March 2013

    Altria Group [Tobacco]
    Drax Group [Electricity generation]
    BHP Billiton [Oil & mining]
    British American Tobacco
    BG Group [Oil & natural gas]
    BP [Oil & natural gas]
    Royal Dutch Shell [Oil & natural gas]
    Imperial Tobacco
    Centrica [Natural gas & electricity]
    Reynolds American [Tobacco]
    Petrofac [Oilfield services]
    Occidental Petroleum [Oil & natural gas]

    The above list “Does not include any assets held in pooled funds.”

  21. By the way the list is just an extract, there are many companies actually listed in other sectors.

  22. Peter Dunford says: @ March 6, 2014 at 10:49 am

    I realise you like to give the benefit of the doubt to some of the alarmists claims then rip them to shreds any way. But the idea that an electric car lasts 1.5 times as long as a real one is absurd….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is for sure. My families pick-up trucks are:
    1987
    1992
    1993
    They are all still on the road and hauling trailers.

  23. Rhys Jaggar says:

    March 6, 2014 at 10:17 am

    I guess it depends on whether you consider the billions spent bombing Iraq to get US oil corporations a new risk-free dividend stream for 30 years a subsidy or not.

    1. Some companies in most industries have exploits/policies which are immoral. Please don’t use those bad apples to tar a whole industry. It sounds like you merely hate energy producers/production.

    2. US consumed oil is more and more domestically produced, so hopefully the invasions, etc of foreign sources will diminish. BTW, it was fear of the petro-dollar dying, plus hopes for a pipeline through Iraq (and today through Syria), which would lessen the Russian monopoly of supplying natural gas to Europe, that gave much impetus for going into Iraq (WMD? lol).

    3. Ever think about who benefits by western countries destroying their economies through CAGW nonsense? If I were a suspicious person I would wonder if China, Russia, or some Islamic countries had a hand in promoting it. Besides having a surfeit of stupid leaders here in the US, there really are other countries that hate us and might be working to handicap/kill us.

  24. George Steiner says:
    March 6, 2014 at 11:16 am

    I must be stupid but I don’t see the 1000%.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    …to invest $100 in Greens in 2002, you would now be the proud owner of $28,

    ….now have a billfold crammed with $238,

    [$238 X100%]/$28 = 850% (Christopher took liberties by rounding up)

  25. I am curious why you started in 2005 for the combined slope. It is negative from at least January 2001.

    As a matter of fact, if we use UAH version 5.5, when this is combined with RSS, it is negative since December 1997. However one would be accused of cherry-picking if this were done.

  26. However, the day of judgment is at hand. A fraud case is being quietly, painstakingly assembled, spanning three continents. When the last pieces of evidence have been carefully collected, half a dozen people will face trial for the serious, imprisonable offense of fraud by misrepresentation.
    ============
    Hear, hear. Now is the right time to speak those words.

  27. Another Geologist’s Take – Nice way to try and change the discussion. Subsidies weren’t discussed, only the Return on Investment. Also, as Clipe’s article points out, the subsides and tax breaks on natural gas, coal, and petroleum are a smaller percentage than what renewables and “green” energy received.

  28. Peterkar says: @ March 6, 2014 at 11:37 am

    And to add to the day’s delights:

    Chevrongate……
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That gets quite interesting. From that link you get:

    …Other companies lured to the trough included an investment company called Burford Capital (which planned originally to invest $15 million to help fund the case in return for a 5.545 per cent share of the $9.5 billion proceeds – but pulled out, having only “invested” $4 million, after it smelt a rat); and also the large, left-wing Washington lobbying and law firm Patton Boggs which stood to make hefty contingency fees from the affair – and whose future now may be in jeopardy, no doubt causing tears of real sadness among Republicans across DC.

    The law firm Patton Boggs flicked a switch in the old memory box.

    From The WTO and the Politics of GMO By F. William Engdahl
    you get

    ..The powerful private interests who control WTO agriculture policy prefer to remain in the background as little-publicized NGO’s. One of the most influential in creating the WTO in the first place was an organization called the IPC or the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council or International Policy Council, for short.

    The IPC was created in 1987 explicitly to drive home the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at Uruguay talks…

    A look at the IPC membership will explain what interests it represents….

    And Members Emeritus include Ann Veneman, herself a board member of a Monsanto subsidiary company before she became US Secretary of Agriculture for George W. Bush in 2001.

    This is where the law firm Patton Boggs comes in. Ann (who now is on the board of Nestlé) worked from 1993 to 1995 for Patton Boggs, a Washington law firm, as Counsel more recently:

    2005 – 2010 Executive Director of United Nations Children’s Fund
    2001 – 2005 Secretary of U.S. Department of Agriculture
    1991 – 1993 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Deputy Secretary
    1989 – 1991 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs
    1987 – 1989 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Associate Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service
    1986 – 1987 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Special Assistant to the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service
    See : http://www.nestle.com/aboutus/Management/BoardOfDirectors/AnnVeneman
    for the rest of her BIO.

    WTO was ratified in 1995 thanks to Clinton after Bush failed.

    Back to Patton Boggs

    Game-changing advocacy and legal services.
    At Patton Boggs, we go beyond the obvious. By combining legal expertise with lobbying know-how and business savvy, we offer insights and perspectives that others can’t. Over the past fifty years, we have established ourselves as a trusted partner and have formed strategic alliances with government and industry leaders within the United States and abroad. This collaborative approach means that we can represent our clients’ best interests through legal, legislative, and executive action. As a result, we are consistently ranked among the top law and advocacy firms.

    A history of innovation.
    Founded in 1962, we were the first major law firm to recognize that all three branches of government offered avenues to achieve our clients’ goals. What started as an international law firm specializing in global business and trade has since evolved into a full-service firm covering all areas of legal practice.

    The strength of diversity.
    The Patton Boggs team comprises nearly 450 lawyers and professionals in offices around the world. Supported by a firm culture that encourages collaboration across political, geographical, and practice-area boundaries, our clients benefit from a dynamic group of problem solvers with access to cutting-edge resources and ideas….

    http://www.pattonboggs.com/about

    So Patton Boggs is one of the real sleezebags who have been selling out the USA to foreign interests since 1962.

  29. Rhys Jaggar says:
    March 6, 2014 at 10:17 am
    ===============================
    Kuwaiti oil was available no matter who sold it. Iraqi oil too. See if you can figure out whether your conspiracy involves making oil more plentiful (cheaper) or scarcer (not cheaper). Then get back to us. –AGF

  30. This analysis fails to tell the true story because the RENIXX holds Tesla Motors. Strip that out for a more fair and balanced comparison. ;)

  31. Thank you for your analysis here. Much appreciated.
    On a related topic the graph which shows the 1.3 degree C per century increase as the reduced IPCC latest assessment I believe that this is connected to the range of 0.3 to 0.7 degree C increase estimated between 2005 and 2035. I am unable to find where in the Chapter 11 pages the best estimate of 0.4 degrees C which corresponds to the 1.3 degree C per century rate. I would appreciate any help pointing me to where the 0.4 degree C best estimate is addressed in the IPCC report. Thanks for your help.

  32. Mods can you dig my comment out of the Lake Ice before it gets completely lost upstream. Thanks.

    WHOOPS there it goes over Niagara falls in a barrel… hope it doesn’t freeze to death.

    [ALL: Be aware that replies WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY go into the "Review" bin for specific moderator review IF they contain the word "fraud" ... (or meet certain other criteria.)
    Since, on this thread, it is VERY LIKELY that the "fraud" word will be used or referenced in many replies, EXPECT DELAYS for your replies until they are accepted. Mod Team]

  33. Peter Dunford,

    “A 7 year old Leaf will not be worth the replacement cost of its battery pack. ”

    I watched a recent tv ad for a leaf, and noticed in the small print, it gave list price of £16k plus £70 pm battery rental. I suppose the £70 is chosen to cancel out the cost of buying fuel for a petrol engined vehicle. Either way, it means you don’t have to worry about battery depreciation – smart move.

  34. Steiner: Easier to understand this way. $28 x 10% =$2.80; x100%=$28; x 1000%=$280. Monckton roughly equated $238 to the $280. Order of magnitude comparison.

    Jim Brock

  35. Another Geologist’s Take says:
    March 6, 2014 at 11:31 am
    The analysis to be fair needs also to consider the generous subsidies that the oil, natural gas and coal industries get from our governments. They are substantial and have been around for decades.

    AGT,
    If you assert ” subsidies…. are substantial and have been around for decades.”, the onus is on you to substantiate your substantial allegations. You did not provide a link….

    Clipe was kind enough to clarify your (ahem) oversight. Would you like to correct your allegations, for the record?

  36. I wonder if you spelled it “farud” or “fardu” whether a comment would be intercepted. Just wondrin’, not suggestin’.

  37. Dept of Defense: 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review
    p12) The impacts ofclimate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, including
    defense support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities. Our actions to increase energy and water security, including investments in energy efficiency, new technologies, and renewable energy
    sources, will increase the resiliency of our installations and help mitigate these effects…
    p30) Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large…
    The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.
    These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.

    http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf

  38. Sorry for the quick read, but it seems that no one has observed that gasoline has an empirical formula of CH2 (actually CnHn+2, where n ~ 7), and coal is pure carbon. For the same thermodynamic fuel efficiency between the gasoline and the electric car, the electric car is a coal-burner and thus produces more CO2 than the gasoline car. So, there is no way the electric car makes sense, even according to CAGW-Green principles.

    Oh, and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is controlled by the chemical equilibrium with the CO2 and carbonate in sea water, so human contributions make no difference. (Carthage must be destroyed!)

  39. Most IC engines petrol or diesel will happily exceed 250k miles. My niece had a petrol Toyota Corolla which she bought from her father and sold it at 180k with a history of being seized twice because it ran out of oil and twice when it ran out of water. The origins of the block were Ford but Toyota reengineered to less exacting tolerances so it could cope more easily with abuse and so it did. If I remember correctly the car was still running at 250k miles. Mercedes Benz diesel taxi’s will happily exceed 250k miles with modern lubricants and high quality fuels and correct servicing. I once drove a Ford Cortina from Manchester to Suffolk with only 1 point of oil in the sump I just filled it up and carried on, it made no difference whatsoever. The most damning indictment of battery vehicles remains range and where as NiCad batteries suffered from memory loss lithium ion batteries degenerate immediately after manufacture whether you use them or not and they do catch fire with Tesla losing 7 vehicles to date to my knowledge. A Nissan Leaf may manage 80 miles when new but that degrades over 3/4 years and it could be as little as 60 miles which is pretty useless but if you get stuck in traffic on a cold winters day with ice and snow you are stuffed. As someone else has said with a battery an electric care is useless when you trade in an IC engine vehicle in good condition you will at least a deposit on a new car but try getting a good trade in price on a electric car with a dud battery which may cost upwards of £15k to replace my feeling is you would be lucky to get scrap value so you would need to cough up another £25k when you could buy a good hatch back in good condition for between £10 and £15 and still get cash for it in a few years time. Electric cars are a hoax just like green God save us from politicians and their green dementia. If Tesla batteries get too hot you have to use electricity to cool them down before you can charge them and if they are too cold you need to use electricity to warm them up before you charge them and if you leave the car too long with say 30% only charge left by the time you return it will be flat because of the drain caused by all of the monitoring systems, not for me. I like 6 cylinder naturally aspirated BMW’s but even that now is a problem because to get the emissions down BMW have to install two turbo chargers which means there is more oomph than I need and the cost is higher because of it but I am not changing at my time of life I will drive what I way come hell or high water, stuff the greens.

  40. Subsidies to “Big Oil” in the context of these debates usually refer to the fact that you can write off a depletion allowance as a reservoir is, well, depleted. It’s the same as saying a building owner is “subsidized” because he can write off depreciation.

  41. Great stuff Lord M!

    You are so right about that Stern character.

    Yes I know he is a Lord and all that, but when I started to read his famous treatise on the economics of global warming protection it became obvious that he would get, as he must very well know himself, a resounding D minus if he submitted it as an Economics 101 essay.

    As I myself studied economics to a somewhat higher level than the first year, I say that he should be among the fraudulent offenders that you mention.

    All the best,
    Roger

    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  42. Anyone aware of a data source which would show the hypothetical performance of the RENIXX with Tesla stripped out? And to be fair, for the STOXX as well, if it also holds Tesla.

  43. There are ‘More Irons to the Fire’ regarding efficiency of I.C.E. versus Electric Vehicles.
    The I.C.E. Vehicle uses ‘Waste’ heat for demisting and heating the Interior whereas the Electric Vehicle has to consume battery power.Maybe 2-3 Kw.

  44. Actually, my large diesel saloon does 45 – 50 mpg, so it is more like 40% efficient, and therefore much more efficient then an electric car.

    .

    What i did not like was Professor David Mackay, the UK government advisor on energy, saying that electric vehicles were FIVE TIMES MORE EFFICIENT THAN FOSSIL FUELLED CARS. See page 127 of his briefing notes to ministers:

    http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

    I called him out on this a couple of years ago. He got hot under the collar, threatened legal action, but then apologised (to the Sunday Times, who had repeated his deliberate misinformation). The Sunday times then printed a retraction, that was so small you needed a magnifying glass to see it.

    However, the professor has never corrected the misleading paragraph in his booklet, that says electric vehicles are 5x more efficient. So ministers probably still think electric vehicles are the best thing since sliced bread.

    I am left wondering – was this government subsidy for electric cars made on the basis of this deliberate lie by David Mackay? Did ministers take this 5x more efficient claim, hook line and sinker? Has the government wasted £millions, because of deliberate misinformation? Should Mr Mackay be forced to pay all of that subsidy money back, out of his own pocket?

    Silver Ralph

  45. David Wells says: @ March 6, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    Most IC engines petrol or diesel will happily exceed 250k miles….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    My 1982 Diesel Pick-up is happily running just fine, well better than new, at 3/4 million miles. (Thank you Jim Jessup)

    I think that truck will out last me!

  46. This was Professor David Mackay’s apology to the Sunday Times, regarding his absurd claim that electric cars were five times more efficient than fossil cars. But even this apology was disingenuous, as my bog-standard car is more efficient than the example he used here.

    More importantly, the paragraph that caused this confusion for the Sunday Times, still has not been amended. And one suspects that this lack of change is deliberate.

    Electric cars’ efficiencies , compared with petrol and diesel , today
    18 Feb 2011

    Dear ********,

    Ralph Ellis has mentioned your article and his correspondence with you (pasted below).

    I’d like to confirm that Mr Ellis is right to assert that what I wrote
    appears to have been misinterpreted. I apologise for the lack of clarity on my part.
    To be clear: when I said electric vehicles use about 15 or 20 kWh per 100 km
    measured at the socket, and petrol vehicles use about 80 kWh per 100 km
    measured at the petrol pump, this should not be taken as implying
    that today’s electric vehicles use 4 or 5 times less fossil fuels
    than petrol cars. The electricity in the UK is largely generated from
    gas and coal, and the efficiency of that elec generation is about 42%,
    so electric vehicles are only about 1.7 times more efficient (assuming 20 kWh electric
    is compared with 80 kWh of fossil fuel, and neglecting the upstream energy costs of
    fossil fuel production in both cases).

    The above statement is consistent with the emissions associated with the two
    vehicle types which I estimated in my book on page 131

    http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_131.shtml

    – I explained there that with today’s UK grid mix, elec vehicles have a footprint
    of roughly 100g per km whereas the average UK car bought today rolls in at 168 g (p 122)

    http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_122.shtml

    which is a ratio of about 1.7 to 1 in favour of the electric vehicle.
    The best fossil fuel vehicles are in the 100 g range so if we compare the
    best fossils with the typical electric car, they are level pegging today.
    An increase in nuclear power or other low-carbon electricity will in due
    course change these answers so that electric vehicles will look increasingly
    good by the carbon emissions metric.

    I hope this helps, and again apologies if the exposition in my book
    was not sufficiently clear.

    yours
    David Mackay

    Email from Sunday Times:

  47. @TerryS

    “The battery is effectively the engine so if you replaced the engine of an internal combustion engine every few years I’m sure it would last longer.”

    There is a device that you can install on your engine that runs up the oil pressure before the engine is started. This will triple act the engine life in most cases. That is why it is not included in any car – only large very expensive engines like bulldozers etc.

  48. M’Lord,
    “However, the day of judgment is at hand. A fraud case is being quietly, painstakingly assembled, spanning three continents. “

    Details to follow? Film at 11:00????
    Mac

  49. The £70/month rental charge for the Nissan Leaf battery pack equates to approximately 54 litres of petrol (gasoline) at the ridiculous UK prices of £1.30/litre ($2.08/litre) and, used in an average petrol vehicle doing 45mpg will take you 6,500 miles annually.
    If petrol was priced more realistically then the £70/month battery hire charge would be the equivalent of petrol consumed in a normal car – therefore the electric option, taking battery charging costs into account at £0.20/kwhr, would in no way save you money.

  50. Here is more green stupidity. Look at the Oregon electricity mix output/demand graph.

    http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx

    March 1st – 2200 MW of wind (at nt when not needed), negligible decrease of fossil fuel use
    March 2nd – literally no wind production until about 11:30pm at night, again when not needed.
    March 3rd – wind production with minimal decrease in fossil fuel reduction
    March 5th/6th – again wind production late evening, spikes at midnight, not needed.
    March 6th – peak of 4000MW of wind, but it looks like it may have replaced 500MW of fossil.
    But who cares if the wind replaces any fossil anyway. Tally up the output and they’ll be the % contribution to the grid, even if they are essentially wasted electrons spun off by the wind.

  51. It appears RENIXX included Tesla early this year, still can’t find the weighting. YTD Tesla is up 68% and RENIXX is up 21%. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that its entire gain was due to one moment driven stock; but I can’t prove it, yet.

  52. Michael J. Dunn says:
    March 6, 2014 at 12:54 pm
    …Oh, and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is controlled by the chemical equilibrium with the CO2 and carbonate in sea water, so human contributions make no difference. (Carthage must be destroyed!)

    “Carthago delenda est!” …If my 40-year old Latin is accurate. Cato’s punch line to every speech he made, or so Sr. Loretto told us. Sorry for the detour.

  53. Jarryd Beck says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    What’s the efficiency of getting petrol out of crude oil?
    About 99.14321400322%.

  54. One question that interests me is this. In the UK motorists who pay £1.30 for a litre of unleaded fuel will be paying 80p of this in duty and VAT, electricity bears nothing like the same amount of tax. So, if we convert a significant portion of our vehicle fleet to electric, where’s the government going to get its money from?

  55. clipe and Mac…I wasn t trying to argue that the green energy industry isn’t a subsidy hog, but if a comaprison is made then the subsidies that are and have gone to the fossil fuel industry need to be in the equation to make it a fair comparison.

    A quick look and I found this….jeez guys you’re acting rabid.

    http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf.

    The point is oil, natural gas and coal companies have gotten lots of breaks over the years. I’m sure that a lot of the lobbying money spent by them in Washington has been fruitful. No value judgement here. Hell, you don’t think the oil companies are now raking in money from the green subsidies too?

  56. Another of Professor David Mackay’s poor ‘misinterpreted’ statements….

    where he suggests that solar panels on an electric car roof will supply 800W which will be sufficient to run a car air conditioning compressor.

    However, ‘Fuel Used for Vehicle Air Conditioning’, by Johnson 2002 of NREL, state that car AC consumes 5 to 8 kW.

    Again, the real figures change arguments greatly.

  57. Another Geologist’s Take says:
    March 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    clipe and Mac…I wasn t trying to argue that the green energy industry isn’t a subsidy hog, but if a comaprison is made then the subsidies that are and have gone to the fossil fuel industry need to be in the equation to make it a fair comparison.

    A quick look and I found this….jeez guys you’re acting rabid.

    http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf.

    The point is oil, natural gas and coal companies have gotten lots of breaks over the years. I’m sure that a lot of the lobbying money spent by them in Washington has been fruitful. No value judgement here. Hell, you don’t think the oil companies are now raking in money from the green subsidies too?

    You really don’t get it, do you? A subsidy is when someone writes you a check, and you have money you wouldn’t otherwise have possessed. Usually someone else’s money. A tax break is when I hit you in the head with a brick (called the IRS) and decide to take only 20% of your money instead of 35%. Understand now? Tax break does not equal subsidy.

  58. ‘Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric auto is – er – also 27%.’

    Oh ye, of little faith. The world’s largest piston engines, the massive 2 cycle, turbocharged, modular marine Diesels of the Wartsila Co. of Finland, achieve a phenomenal 50% efficiency level – all the more impressive considering they’re converting heat energy into mechanical energy. And, also all the more impressive since, just a few years ago they were 40% efficient. I have little doubt, with such things as DLC (diamond like carbon) coatings, graphite coated pistons, direct electronic fuel injection, computer controlled solenoid operated variable intake and exhaust valves, new formulation synthetic oils, and of course, human ingenuity and creativity, the venerable reciprocating IC engines in automobiles will be inviting those Wartsila’s to dinner. Moreover, some of those electric cars need radiators with electric fans to dissipate some of the heat generated in those electric motors – heat that’s clearly not being put to productive work.

    The future is bright – if we ever learn to leave each other alone to live, thrive, and survive. If…

  59. D.I. says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    There are ‘More Irons to the Fire’ regarding efficiency of I.C.E. versus Electric Vehicles.The I.C.E. Vehicle uses ‘Waste’ heat for demisting and heating the Interior whereas the Electric Vehicle has to consume battery power.Maybe 2-3 Kw.

    D.I. has a very good point that is missed in Christopher’s analysis.
    I once got a ride to work with my brother in his Volkswagen Beetle that did not have interior heating. it was not a pleasant experience.

  60. Got a pleasant surprise this morning, I have stated several times since early January that North Queensland is having a much cooler and drier than normal Summer. I said this only in response to the ‘extreme’ heat wave reports in a line from SE South Australia to eastern Victoria.

    Well this morning I came out to make my coffee and overnight the wattle trees had flowered their bright-red pipe-cleaner flowers again. I was stunned as this usually happens from mid October to early December, and no other time.

    This summer has been so cool and dry that the plants apparently think it’s still Spring, so are throwing flowers and fruit again. So I walked down the street to check on this, sure enough, more trees, not just wattles, have begun to bloom as well (don’t know what they are, no botanist).

    So it’s been so unusually cool that the plants don’t know what part of the year this is. Now the that sun has reached the same approximate incident angle again as Spring, they’re flowering again

    We had a warmer and milder winter that preceded this spring and summer so the biannual temperature range has flattened. So for all the BOM and ABC hype of excess heat this summer, at least the wattle trees are telling the whole truth. One the BOM’s dodgy daily max T statistics can not get around.

    Any in coastal QLD have a look around and report if you’re seeing similar flowering where you are. Check for new buds as well. You can even smell the flowers walking past the trees. As far as I know this has not happened in March during my life time, and it was unusual coolness that has done it.

  61. Another Geologist’s Take says:
    March 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    jeez guys you’re acting rabid

    One finger pointed at me leaves four fingers pointed back at you.

  62. Here is an example of a subsidy, at least in my book. Last year, a USDA representative came to my lemon ranch and informed me that our irrigation system was inefficient and out dated. I was aware the need to replace it and in fact had reserves set aside for the job. I was pleased to learn that I could keep 60% of my replacement money because the taxpayers had funded a program to upgrade farmers’ irrigation systems nationwide. The new system is very nice; and it has reduced my water bill by tens of thousands of dollars per year.

    To all of you, please allow me to express my own heartfelt gratitude, and that of my family! The subsidy allowed us to take a wonderful 2 week vacation to the Caribbean.

    On the same ranch, I am allowed to depreciate the trees over their expected productive life span. That is not a subsidy, it is simply the government allowing me to keep enough of my own money to replace them when they get too old.

    In my mind, there is a big difference between the two. To me, that the government would [buy] me a new irrigation system is appalling. If I could push a button and terminate the program this instant I’d do it. On the other hand, I couldn’t survive if I weren’t allowed to depreciate the trees and other equipment.

  63. RE: However, the day of judgment is at hand. A [phrawd] case is being quietly, painstakingly assembled, spanning three continents. When the last pieces of evidence have been carefully collected, half a dozen people will face trial for the serious, imprisonable offense of [phrawd] by misrepresentation.
    +++++++++++
    I am so happy to read these words… I hope so much for this to be happening! Very nice post Lord Monckton!

  64. Ross Garnaut loves that “muscular” fracking/nuclear obama, then drifts off to Mars, to make his point?

    7 Mar: SMH: Ross Garnaut slams Abbott government’s direct action policy as like a ‘Martian beauty contest’
    by Peter Hannam, Jonathan Swan
    But Professor Garnaut, who is a strong supporter of having a price on carbon, believes the ultimate cost to the budget of the Abbott government’s climate policy could be much greater than $4 billion a year, given many countries are committing to more ambitious emissions reduction targets…
    At the Senate hearing on Friday, Professor Garnaut, who dialed in on a speaker phone, told the senators that it was misleading to compare the Abbott government’s ”Direct Action” program to the Obama administration’s ”muscular direct action”, which was ”highly interventionist”…
    The US government was taking much stronger actions than the Abbott government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Professor Garnaut suggested…
    In his submission, he also described the direct action plan as part of a Martian beauty contest…

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ross-garnaut-slams-abbott-governments-direct-action-policy-as-like-a-martian-beauty-contest-20140307-34atj.html

  65. “Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric auto is – er – also 27%. However, the electric auto requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.”
    >>>

    I disagree, this is not close to accurate, in real world terms.

    Anyone using a Prius knows these are far cheaper to run than a similar sized conventional car. The price at the petrol station counter tells the truth. And it’s not a switch to “electric” cars, it is a switch to hybrids that’s taking place, and it’s a very good thing, as they are between 20% to 35% more fuel efficient, per kilometer driven.

    And that is a huge economic advantage to the hybrid owners, compared to a conventional car owner, and that extra dollars or pounds in the pocket and disposable income edge can not be ignored in a competitive system … (if they both feel they must own cars).

  66. 6 Mar: Reuters: Nina Chestney: UPDATE 1-UK needs 100 bln pounds more to meet 2020 carbon targets
    Stock markets over-value fossil fuel firms (Adds UK government comment in paras 7 and 8)
    Britain set up the Green Investment Bank (GIB) in 2012 with 3.8 billion pounds ($6.3 billion) of initial capital to help spur investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency and stipulated it could turn to the debt markets for funding next year depending on the government debt burden.
    GIB has estimated that at least 200 billion pounds must be invested in low-carbon infrastructure over the next 10 years, including around 110 billion to replace old nuclear and coal power plants and upgrade the grid…
    The Department of Energy and Climate Change expects investment in renewable energy generation projects to total around 40 billion pounds by 2020, which will help support up to 110 billion pounds of investment across the electricity sector, a spokeswoman said.
    “We have set the conditions to attract investment into our energy sector which will keep the lights on for years to come,” she added…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/green-investment-britain-idUSL6N0M323R20140306

  67. 6 Mar: Reuters: Ernest Scheyder: EPA chief says new U.S. energy rules won’t hobble business
    Carbon regulations can be crafted to help offset climate change without “shutting down business in its tracks,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said at a major energy conference on Thursday…
    “We don’t have to choose between a healthy environment and a healthy economy,” McCarthy, who has run the EPA for nearly a year, said about new rules she said would be proposed by this summer.
    “We know conventional fuels like coal and natural gas are going to continue to play a critical role in a diverse U.S. energy mix.”…
    The Houston visit came about a week after McCarthy toured North Dakota, trying to convince the state’s coal, oil and ethanol producers that her agency was not trying to burden their industries with onerous regulations…
    “The real, scary cost we need to worry about is the cost of climate inaction,” she said. McCarthy said right now she is focused on power plant regulation and is unsure if she will have time in her term to focus on refiner regulation…
    Lynn Good, CEO of Duke Energy Corp, the largest American utility, said she is “encouraged” by McCarthy’s new approach but has already decided building new coal plants are not worth the regulatory risk.
    “I don’t see new coal in the mix for Duke,” Lynn said…
    Opponents of EPA regulations have often been wrong when they cry “the sky is falling” when new rules are enacted, McCarthy said, trying to ward off any fresh attacks following her speech.
    ***“We’ve heard this tired argument again and again before,” she said. “And every single time, it’s fallen flat on its face.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-ceraweek-mccarthy-idUSBREA2528V20140306

    ***that tired old CAGW scary story, McCarthy?

  68. pat says:
    March 6, 2014 at 4:39 pm
    7 Mar: SMH: Ross Garnaut

    >>>

    Ross Garnaut needs a permanent sock installation, in his mouth.

    He’s quite possibly a richer and a bigger hypocrite than even Al gore.

  69. @bonanzapilot says:
    March 6, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    Yes, excellent example. The least you could have done in exchange for my largesse was send a post card! ;-)

  70. @Unmentionable says:
    March 6, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    I typically keep a car for 10 years. It would be longer, but people keep running into me at red lights. >:-( How many battery changes will I need to include in my committed costs in order to develop a levelized cost estimate for electric or electric/hybrid vs all-petrol? I think you’ll find that to be the fly in the ointment.

  71. D.J. Hawkins says:
    March 6, 2014 at 3:43 pm >>>>>>

    My comment at 4:32 pm regarding subsidies was intended to support your argument with a concrete example, Mr. Hawkins.

    I am a newbie here and just learning the cross-referencing and other protocols which have evolved on Mr. Watts’ site.

    I’ll be up to speed soon.

  72. @Tom

    “…computer controlled solenoid operated variable intake and exhaust valves,”
    Well spotted. My nephew did his PhD on the subject and produce a working 4-cylinder engine head that functions to 5000 RPM. No cam shaft, total control of valve timing – even the lift is programmable. The transformation of the engine’s efficiency and torque characteristics is profound. The trick to success turned out to be controlling the flight of the valve during an exhaust-open misfire. With diesels this is unlikely plus they operate at much lower speeds so we can expect to see Mercedes diesels competing with the large marine engines soon enough.

    Given the new-found bonanzas in natural gas, perhaps the most efficient motive power in the next 50 years will be a compression ignition natural gas engine.

  73. Well clipe, I was going to make a better response now that I’m away from the work desk, but that last adolescent response made it moot. Thanks, I feel better now.

  74. “Tesla’s modest first-quarter profit relied on $68 million from zero-emission-vehicle (ZEV) credits it sold to other, less environmentally friendly car companies under a California emissions mandate. There’s also the $7,500 federal tax break for people who buy electric vehicles, which makes its pricey cars more affordable.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/tesla-q2-second-quarter-earnings-elon-musk-subsidies

    Not normally a fan of Mother Jones, but she describes the situation accurately – the only exception being “the $7,500 federal tax break”. Many would assume a “break” is a deduction. In this case it is a credit, which offsets any taxes owed dollar for dollar up to the limit.

    I was curious whether a buyer of the vehicle with a tax bill of less than $7,500 in the year of purchase could either sell it to someone else or carry it forward or backward. Apparently, and unlike the producer, he cannot.

  75. bonanzapilot says:
    March 6, 2014 at 5:28 pm
    D.J. Hawkins says:
    March 6, 2014 at 3:43 pm >>>>>>

    My comment at 4:32 pm regarding subsidies was intended to support your argument with a concrete example, Mr. Hawkins.

    I am a newbie here and just learning the cross-referencing and other protocols which have evolved on Mr. Watts’ site.

    I’ll be up to speed soon.

    My deepest apologies if you think I was being critical of your post, it was definitely +1. I thought that the “winking eye” emoticon would have made it clear I was joshing about the post card. Sorry again.

  76. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    There is a device that you can install on your engine that runs up the oil pressure before the engine is started. This will triple act the engine life in most cases. That is why it is not included in any car – only large very expensive engines like bulldozers etc.

    Can you give me any clues to help me google for this item?

  77. @bonanzapilot says:
    March 6, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    The tax credit is really the same as handing you cash. A lot of it. For the equivalent amount, divide $7,500 by your marginal tax rate. If your marginal rate is 36%, it’s like getting $20,833 from Uncle Sam. Nice break if you can get it. And NOT a subsidy; but you knew that already. Ironically, the higher your tax bracket, the less phantom income you get. On the other hand, if I could afford one, I probably wouldn’t loose any sleep over that detail.

  78. rogerknights says:
    March 6, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    There is a device that you can install on your engine that runs up the oil pressure before the engine is started. This will triple act the engine life in most cases. That is why it is not included in any car – only large very expensive engines like bulldozers etc.

    Can you give me any clues to help me google for this item?

    Oh come on, that was WAY too easy;

    http://www.google.com/patents/US5511522

  79. D.J. Hawkins says:
    March 6, 2014 at 6:11 pm >>>

    Wasn’t offended at all. If I were allowed to edit, I would have simply directed the comment to you. I just pushed the “Post” button too soon. :)

  80. Here are some posts from the past (on WUWT) wrt subsidies:
    ================

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-86/

    Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Connie Hedegaard, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action, has an essay demanding that countries stop subsidizing fossil fuels. She states: “According to the IEA, fossil-fuel subsidies rose by almost 30%, to $523 billion, in 2011. Meanwhile, the UN Environment Program reports that global investment in renewable energy totaled only $257 billion in 2011.”

    Ms Hedegaard fails to state that the IEA study she cites shows the vast bulk of fossil fuel subsidies occur in developing countries, not in developed Western nations. In descending order, the five countries with the greatest fossil fuel subsidies are: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and China. The omission is all too typical among Western green bureaucrats and Ms. Hekegaard’s logic is far from daunting. Should a western country subsidize expensive, unreliable wind and solar because Iran subsidies gasoline? Please see Article #3 and link under Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?

    HaroldW says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:33 am

    there are some subsidies, but they are actually really small.

    1: royalties paid to foreign countries and states are credited for tax purposes…. as it should be.

    if you paid for raw material, it has be considered as expense.

    2: research credit that is available to ALL INDUSTRIES is available to oil&gas. there is nothing special here.

    3: govt pays poor people for heat. that is welfare. not a subsidy to oil&gas. That money can be used for electric heat, even if it is hydro electric or other “renewable” source.

    4: investment credits available to everyone is available to oil&gas. where is the subsidy there?
    ——————

    Jeremy says:
    September 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”

    Firstly, all Oil Companies pay taxes on earnings just like any corporation. According to data found in the Standard & Poor’s Compustat North American Database, the industry’s 2009 net income tax expenses — essentially their effective marginal income tax rate — averaged 41 percent, compared to 26 percent for the S&P Industrial companies. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) concludes that, as an additional part of their tax obligation, the major energy-producing companies paid or incurred over $280 billion of income tax expenses between 2006 and 2008.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/25/the-truth-about-americas-oil-gas-companies-part-i/ .

    Secondly, according to the ONRR, annual revenues from federal onshore and offshore (OCS) mineral leases are one of the federal government’s largest sources of non-tax revenue. In 2010, Royalty Revenue amounted to around $8 Billion

    http://www.onrr.gov/

    ————–

    Luke says:
    September 26, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Most of those $4.0 billion in “subsidies” are not specific to the oil & gas industry. They break down as follows:

    $1.7 billion in Domestic Manufacturing Credits: Applies to all production companies equally. A reward for creating/leaving the jobs in the US economy. You can argue whether or not they can move this production from the US, since the oil is located here, but it is clear that they can move the exploration equipment to anywhere in the world and ship the oil in. There is no requirement that oil used domestically must be produced in the US. So given that, what other industries should we strip this credit from?

    $1.0 billion in % depletion allowance: Applies specifically to the oil and gas industry as a mechanism for capital recovery. It takes the place of depreciating the assets in the ground. Of course we don’t like to talk about the dark side of this one, which is when oil prices are lower for a sustained period of time, it acts like an anti-subsidy, so this one can cut both ways and at time has. Easy solution is to use capital base instead of income. Over the long haul though, I doubt this equals $1.0 billion a year. Just $1.0 billion a year in the current price environment.

    $0.9 billion in foreign tax credit: This one again, applies equally to all. The dodgy part with this is classification of royalty payments as income taxes. Some foreign governments have converted royalty payments to income taxes, allowing for greater deductibility under US tax law. This, however, is not unique to the oil industry. So again, who else would you like to strip this one from?

    $0.8 billion in intangible drilling costs: This one is specific to the oil and gas industry. This however is not a subsidy. Period. Exclamation Point! At best, this is a shifting of tax payments to later years. It allows the oil company to deduct their exploration expenses immediately. When this rule was enacted, it actually made sense because 90% of those expenses were written off in the first year anyway because of the abysmal hit rate for new wells, as opposed to the alternative which is adding it to the depreciation base for a new well. Now that the hit rate is much better, maybe it’s time to rethink the break, but it will not provide an $0.8 billion dollar annual windfall. It might provided a short term difference, but after 4-5 years under the new rules, you’d be pretty much back to the same annual number for “tax breaks” resulting from intangible drilling costs.
    —————–

    chris y says:
    September 26, 2011 at 9:31 am

    “U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”

    That $4B amounts to 1.6 cents per gallon of gasoline.

    Did Schumer also propose an end to Federal, state and local gasoline taxes to ‘even the playing field’?

    Did Schumer also propose an equivalent tax on solar and wind energy to ‘even the playing field?’
    —————

    Catcracking says:
    December 3, 2011 at 7:20 am

    One favorites of Pelosi is the reduction in royalities that was set up during the Clinton Administration to give companies an incentive to drill in deep water offshore in the Gulf when oil prices were low. Royalities are still paid but circa 20 % less. It was a good business deal for both sides at the time and improved for the drillers as oil prices rose. So now many of the tax and spend crowd want to change the contract and threaten those who refuse to comply with blackballing them from biding on new leases. How else can they make renewable energy sources look competitive?

    Another item frequently referenced is the accelerated write off of capital expenses to encourage investment and boost the economy that is offered to every other business.

    A third item is the foreign tax credits offered to all companies that bring foreign earnings back to the US.
    —————

    Janice says:
    December 3, 2011 at 7:36 am

    There is a hidden subsidy for both solar and wind power, one that could easily be avoided, but never will be because it is not politically expedient. The subsidy is the amount of money it takes to remove solar and wind farms once the parent company abandons them. It usually winds up being public money that is used, since the parent companies usually go bankrupt and are dissolved. It could easily be avoided if the parent companies were forced to post a bond equal to the amount it would take to remove the equipment, and restore the area. And that is a subsidy which coal and oil do not enjoy, because they are forced to remediate their mining and drilling sites.

    Roy UK says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:33 am

    @Alexandre 7.47am

    Statement before the Senate Finance Committee

    Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure March 27, 2012
    FY2010 Electricity Production Subsidies and Support per megawatt-hour
    (year 2010 dollars)

    Natural Gas, Petroleum Liquids 0.63
    Coal (pulverized) 0.64
    Hydroelectric 0.84
    Biomass 2.00
    Nuclear 3.10
    Geothermal 12.50
    Wind 52.48
    Solar 968.00

    So subsidies per MWh to Wind and Solar are 100 – 1500 times the cost of subsidies to the Big oil. You didn’t really think your question through did you?

    Steve Keohane says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Alexandre says:December 5, 2012 at 7:47 am

    I’d like to know where the Heartland Institute stands in the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. You know, being non-Big Oil and all…


    According to the link you provided $58B was paid globally in so called oil subsidies. In 2004, according to energy.gov, we in the USA used 140 billion gallons of gasoline, for which $70B in taxes at the pump was collected. And don’t for get the corporate tax on the wholesale sales, and the taxes paid by the oil employees to make the gasoline, etc. So where is the subsidy? Your so-called oil subsidies are smoke and mirrors, nothing more.

    John M says:
    December 5, 2012 at 9:11 am

    Steve Keohane says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Regarding the whining about fossil fuel “subsidies”, it would be interesting to see Alexendre’s opinion on these “subsidies” listed in his source:

    Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Petroleum) : 336 Million
    Fuel-Tax Exemptions for Farmers: 1 Billion (that’s a B)
    Strategic Petroleum Reserves: 1 Billion (Hell, the way that one’s been used, it should be charged back to the DNC as a campaign contribution)
    Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Nat Gas): 1.7 Billion (that’s a B too)
    Credit for Investment in Clean-Coal Facilities: 370 Million
    Amortisation of Certain Pollution-Control Facilities: 200 Million

    Jeez, maybe they ought to count food stamps as a fossil fuel subsidy too, since they are used to buy food produced by those farmers who get those huge Fossil Fuel tax exemptions, or allow poor people to spend more to fill their tanks.

  81. An by the way, D.J. Hawkins, if you are a US taxpayer, a special thanks to you personally for our new irrigation system. It is really nice. ;)

  82. Another Geologist’s Take says:
    March 6, 2014 at 11:31 am
    The analysis to be fair needs also to consider the generous subsidies that the oil, natural gas and coal industries get from our governments. They are substantial and have been around for decades.
    ++++++++++
    The word subsidy is often used to mean two different things. If it means you get to write off expenses, and keep the money you earned, I do not consider that same thing as being given someone else’s money. Green subsidizes and carbon credits often come from other people’s money given to them because the government decides to redistribute wealth. I do not think oil company subsidies come from other people’s pockets as in a redistribution.

    If it were not for oil companies, we’d all be more poor and or less wealthy. I do not thing that claim can be made when talking of wind powered generator or PV solar manufacturers. Just sayin’

  83. Another Geologist’s Take says:
    March 6, 2014 at 11:31 am

    The analysis to be fair needs also to consider the generous subsidies that the oil, natural gas and coal industries get from our governments. They are substantial and have been around for decades.

    I’ve heard this so many times yet I’ve rarely heard of any specific examples. When it comes to oil companies I know of two items that are referred to as subsidies. One is the ability to write off the cost of drilling an exploration well as an expense in the year the well is drilled. The other is the issuance of flow-through shares, the money of which is used to finance exploration drilling, with the investor (not the oil company) getting a tax break. Both of these encourage exploration in the country, province, state in which the tax breaks are offered.

    Neither of the above are subsidies in the sense that wind and solar plants can receive direct financial grants or zero interest loans to construct their projects, or they are paid a minimum price for their product which is 2-3 times higher than the market rate. At least with the oil companies they have to spend their own money and sell their product at world prices.

    Or are you referring to “other” subsidies?

  84. rogerknights says:
    March 6, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    “Of course we don’t like to talk about the dark side of this one, which is when oil prices are lower for a sustained period of time, it acts like an anti-subsidy..”

    Can you please explain how that would work. I wasn’t aware of it and I should be.

  85. bonanzapilot says:

    March 6, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    “I was curious whether a buyer of the vehicle with a tax bill of less than $7,500 in the year of purchase could either sell it to someone else or carry it forward or backward. Apparently, and unlike the producer, he cannot.”
    ==============
    If you are looking to run a scam, you might have come to the wrong place.
    Low altitude with the stall horn blaring, not a good place to be.

  86. D.J. Hawkins says:
    March 6, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    @Unmentionable says:
    March 6, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    I typically keep a car for 10 years. It would be longer, but people keep running into me at red lights. >:-( How many battery changes will I need to include in my committed costs in order to develop a levelized cost estimate for electric or electric/hybrid vs all-petrol? I think you’ll find that to be the fly in the ointment.

    >>>

    Yes that is a further factor.

    Nevertheless, Prius Gen-2 battery changes have steadily fallen from the former ~$7,200 AUD to about $4,000 AUD. The Gen-3’s are even cheaper because you don’t have to pull the entire car’s interior apart to change it, so much faster with less Labor and potential for degraded interior fitment, plus Gen-3 uses Li rather than NiCads now so lighter for same energy, but they upper the engine power as well for no effective change to mileage figures, just a lot more zip on the throttle.

    I think you would agree the good Lord’s numbers are significantly problematic. He has many intelligent things to say in other areas regarding the debate, but this is not his area, and people should be wary quoting these figures elsewhere, for they will come unstuck.

  87. @ David Wells
    Best value for money is an LPG or LNG fueled, bivalent(gas+petrol) type. In Europe, Fiat(e.g. Doblo, Panda) and GM’s Opel(e.g. Zafira, Insignia) sell them. LPG, compared to petrol, is half the price but consumtion is 10-15% more. I am familiar with LPG driven cars since 1979…
    But also take ethanol(E85) into consideration. If your car can take that, use it instead of regular. My 20+ year-old Volkswagen accepts a mix of up to 50% w/o problems. You get far better value for money than using short-lived battery-powered, catweazeled ‘electrickery’. True ‘Greens’ don’t make a fuss but go free-spirited….

  88. Another Geologist’s Take says:
    March 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    clipe and Mac…I wasn t trying to argue that the green energy industry isn’t a subsidy hog, but if a comaprison is made then the subsidies that are and have gone to the fossil fuel industry need to be in the equation to make it a fair comparison.

    A quick look and I found this….jeez guys you’re acting rabid.

    http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf.

    =========================================================================
    And you’re just being stupid. Sorry, but after hearing lots of NPR propaganda today (97%! It’s a fact!), I’m just not in the mood to be especially polite. Did you bother reading your own link? Here’s a couple of quotes I found in less than a minute:

    The Middle East and North Africa region accounted for about 50percent of global energy subsidies (Figure 3, Appendix Table2).

    The only advanced economy where energy subsidies were a non-negligible share of GDP was Taiwan Province of China at 0.3 percent of GDP (electricity)

    And did you bother reading the Lomborg piece that Clipe posted? Obviously not because you go right to the IMF report which is specifically addressed. Virtually all of the advanced country subsidies are due to what the IMF thinks the externalities should be priced at, i.e. they’re not taxed enough. Isn’t that convenient? That’s a dial-a-subsidy machine right there! Don’t see enough subsidy for fossil fuels to fit the narrative? Why, just claim that they’re doing $100/kWh of eco-damage and problem solved!

    Oh, and if you don’t like that piece, then here’s some more:

    http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Zycher%20Senate%20Finance%20renewables%20incentives%20testimony%203-27-12.pdf

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/07/cbo-debunks-myth-that-tax-code-favors-oil-over-renewables/

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43032

  89. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm
    There is a device that you can install….

    Not an expert in the all of the dynamics of this, but have lots of experience pre-heating piston aircraft engines. The problem isn’t so much pre-circulating the oil as raising its temperature and thereby reducing its viscosity to a point where it will circulate at all.

    http://www.csobeech.com/interior-csob.html

  90. I wonder if any Darwin Awards were earned these past few weeks in central North America by folks heading out on trips with battery powered autos? Or did they start up the gas 4X4 and get their work done?
    Many years ago I would help the truck drivers of our local cola (soda, to some) bottling plant as they loaded prior to making winter deliveries. They started a couple of bags of charcoal and slid trays under the racks of glass bottles. Anyone that wants to use this concept for their electric car, please feel free to do so.

  91. Looking forward to the results of the Pattern Recognition Journal case.
    Is there a timeline on the fraud suits?
    Something concrete would be good.

  92. D.J. Hawkins says:
    March 6, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    Don’t you mean 7,500/(1-.36)=$11,719? If you are right about the $20K+, I just might just go out and buy one with the rest of the free money you gave me for my irrigation system. I’m very anti-subsidy because they distort markets; but as long as they are handing them out, I want my share.

  93. bonanzapilot says:

    March 6, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    ================
    I know you’re just being a pest now, thought you might have had something to say.
    Thought you might be a pilot.
    Just kidding :)

    Any original thoughts, or what ?
    Mine have been destroyed en masse by those that lurk here.
    Mostly they try to destroy you in a respectful way.
    Mostly :)

  94. However, the day of judgment is at hand.
    Hopefully not delayed by the obfuscation an El Nino or volcanic eruption would provide.

  95. Checked the basic numbers for a Gen-2 Prius Hybrid.

    ~150K km per battery change is fairly typical for a Prius Gen-2s (this was reported by a taxi operator) and typical fuel economy for hard city driving is ~$29 AUD, per 300 kilometers.

    So if we take 150k km as the battery swap-over point, this equates to $14,500 of fuel expended to that range. Given the Prius Gen-2 is ~35% more efficient than a contemporary conventional model of the same size and seat capacity (and this is not an exaggeration, it is), then this equates to $19,575 of fuel for a conventional car over the same distance.

    So the difference in fuel cost to battery change point of 150k km is about $5,075 AUD.

    So as the battery refit is $4,000, this leaves only $1,075 of fuel price saved, in 150k km, compared to the conventional powered model.

    So the real fuel efficiency gain in the Gen-2 Prius fuel efficiency figures, taking into account the battery swap of $4,000 AUD, means the total fuel efficiency gain comes in at around:

    7.41%

    Which is much lower than I had thought – I must recant here, somewhat.

    Thus the hybrid efficiency bonus is ~7.5% (and the Prius Gen-2 is probably still the most efficient hybrid model built to date, so this is as good as it gets with the old NiCad batteries).

    This is not as low as the 4% the author suggests above, but not as high as I had supposed either, in a real world comparison of fuel savings, once the typical battery change is included.

    Sorry Mr. Monckton, was not as far off as I’d thought (but still it’s about ~190% out).

  96. AJB says:
    March 6, 2014 at 7:39 pm>>>>

    Hahahaha!

    From the Reuters article:

    “There is a force, stronger than us, that may control cycles in the markets… I believe living in tune with the cycles, which can be upset very easily, is a major way to participate in the markets, but one must always remember that trees don’t grow to the sky and how long can a stock go? Zero”

    Trees may not grow to the sky, but they can certainly bear fruit for a long time. Some people don’t seem to understand that there are stocks, which represent claims on the future return of tangible assets or human innovation, and the stock market, which over the short term is a chaotic system based upon most participants’ feelings that they are smarter than everyone else. Over the long term, Mr. Market usually gets it right, and I don’t think he pays much attention to the moon.

  97. u.k.(us) says:
    March 6, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    Not trying to be a pest, just trying to clarify the economic effects of subsidies. Probably don’t have any original thoughts either, but many here do. I’m just a pragmatist trying to make my way through the real world, and some of the information in this forum is helpful. ;)

  98. bonanzapilot says: March 6, 2014 at 8:05 pm
    future return of tangible assets or human innovation
    Yep, that about sums it up. I’m tempted to change the last word to advancement but that’s not quite right either. Probably better to add and discovery“.

    You’ve got to do a double take of the domain name of that last link though. It has everything; owls hooting in the moonlight … to whit, to woo :-)

  99. “Unmentionable says:

    March 6, 2014 at 5:16 pm”

    Garnout is a hypocrite. He was the economic architect of the price on carbon. Problem is everyone forgets that in 1972 he worked with the PNG Govn’t to enable land sales to mining companies. He was also on the board of Ok Tedi copper and gold mine in PNG. So, like Gore, he’s made lots of money out of “carbon polluting” industries.

  100. rogerknights says:
    March 6, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    There is a device that you can install on your engine that runs up the oil pressure before the engine is started. This will triple act the engine life in most cases. That is why it is not included in any car – only large very expensive engines like bulldozers etc.

    Can you give me any clues to help me google for this item?

    here’s a link to one of the more popular ones

    http://www.accusump.com/

  101. Dave Wendt says:
    March 6, 2014 at 9:45 pm
    rogerknights says:
    March 6, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    There is a device that you can install on your engine that runs up the oil pressure before the engine is started. This will triple act the engine life in most cases. That is why it is not included in any car – only large very expensive engines like bulldozers etc.

    Can you give me any clues to help me google for this item?

    here’s a link to one of the more popular ones

    http://www.accusump.com/

    +++++++++
    Yes – we used these in our race cars! They also keep oil circulating under high g-loads while under full throttle, so the engine is not starved of oil as it sloshes to one side of the oil pan.

  102. David Wells

    Any modern car should be able to do well over 200,000 miles. I drove my 1985 Chev Nova (Toyota Corolla) to the junk yard at 405,000 miles. It still ran but salt roads hes taken to big of a toll on the body. My present vehicle is at 155,000 and I expect it to run for at least that much more.

  103. il y a longtemps que des systèmes ont été mis a point – systèmes efficaces – pour diminuer drastiquement la consommation de carburant et faire chuter les émissions de CO2 des moteurs diesel – EPA le sait (et d’autres) –

    l’injection directe fragilise les moteurs –

    mais tout ceci n’est pas dans l’intérêt des constructeurs, ni dans celui des pétroliers

    [Via Google translate, Mod.

    long ago that systems have been put hath - efficient systems - to drastically reduce fuel consumption and drive down CO2 emissions from diesel engines - EPA knows (and others) -

    direct injection engines weakens -

    but this is not in the interests of manufacturers, nor in oil

    ]

  104. steverichards1984 says: March 6, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    Another of Professor David Mackay’s poor ‘misinterpreted’ statements….
    where he suggests that solar panels on an electric car roof will supply 800W which will be sufficient to run a car air conditioning compressor.
    _________________________________________

    And another misleading statement by Prof David Mackay is that an electric motor running at 95% efficiency, will provide enough residual heat to warm and demist the interior of the car. In truth, if you run an electric car in Canada in the winter, you have two choices.
    a. Freeze your rocks off.
    b. Have a 5 mile range.

    What we have here, is a scientific advisor who is a rampant Greenie, and he is the one advising the UK government on energy policy. It is no wonder that our energy policy is a crock of do-do.

    Where are the ten nuclear power stations we need?
    Where is the thorium research?
    Where is the positive government backing for fracking?
    Where is the truth about the Ukrainian situation?
    .. (ie: We cannot intervene in Ukraine, because Russia will turn the gas off next winter.)

    Politically, economically, and socially, the UK (and much of Europe) are on the cusp of an energy crisis, with looming blackouts, and our governments play the fiddle while the city London goes dark. Nero fell on his sword. Will cameron do the same?

    Ralph

  105. Another Geologist’s Take says: March 6, 2014 at 11:31 am
    The analysis to be fair needs also to consider the generous subsidies that the oil, natural gas and coal industries get from our governments. They are substantial and have been around for decades.
    _______________________________________

    Absolute tosh.
    In fact, that is tosh of the century.

    Those are not subsidies for the oil industry, they are investments.

    In reality, UK government finances depend in a great part on the huge taxes that they levy on oil and gas products. Thus they know that if they INVEST a little money to open a new and difficult oil/gas field, they will get their money back in spades when the product comes on-stream.

    With renewables, the government subsidises the infrastructure, and then CONTINUES TO SUBSIDISE the end product (electricity) through the Renewable Obligation Certificates – which are a shadow taxation scheme levied on your electric bills.

    In summary, the oil and gas industrues get no net subsidy, because their production pays back taxes that are greater than the subsidy BY SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. They are net contributors to the government purse. In fact, many governments around the world would be bankrupt within the year, were it not for the huge profits from oil and gas.

    Ralph

  106. What is limiting the life of internal combustion engine cars NOW is the futuristic insistence upon computer-controlled engine as a means for eeking out a tiny bit more mileage relative to a carburetor.

    That savings in fuel and pollution has a down-side: your car has much more expensive, unique/idiosyncratic parts to repair/replace, and this requires a level of diagnostic tools and repair training than the ol’ carbureted internal combustion engine.

    ANY repair has the $70 diagnostic code ante. The computer diagnostics are often wrong, requiring trial-and-error to cure the problem.

    This has an effect on lower-wage earners: they cannot reliably get an auto that can be brought up to spec without great expense. Let’s face it: when we professional-wage-earners hit that point when the computer goes whacky, we simply want ot dump the car on the dealer, who wants to dump it on another dealer, who wants to dump it on the low-wage working man, or we try to dump it on the low-wage working man ourselves.

    In the ol’ days, plenty of things could be done to a car to keep it going down the road a few more miles in a relatively safe and relatively efficient manner. You could get tired of a car, or it could have a major problem -valve job, transmission, – but could be brought back to spec with either a fairly realistic though big price tag, or a lot of knowledge, a pick-a-part yard, and a shade tree.

    Now, that price tag to get a 15-year -old computer-controlled internal combustion engine car running is huge. The working man is shafted worse than a set of connector rods.

    It has been noted that the green-tax on everything provides a greater hurt upon the lower-income people. So does this computer-controlled-car-repair-tax. The low-income wage-earner is in a much more precarious position, and is forced to a position of lower productivity, when cars become increasingly expensive to keep running as they age, due to the electronically-controlled engines.

    S, yes, an internal combustion engine car can be kept running far longer than a battery-operated car. Things could be even better over the life of the car, and for the working man, if we devoted energy to ever-improving the internal combustion engine by making it ever-more reliable, including beyond the 10-year or 15-year mark.

  107. TheLastDemocrat says:
    March 6, 2014 at 11:18 pm>>>>

    Never really thought of it that way, but I think you are right.

  108. Mark Luhman says:
    March 6, 2014 at 10:03 pm
    David Wells
    Any modern car should be able to do well over 200,000 miles. I drove my 1985 Chev Nova (Toyota Corolla) to the junk yard at 405,000 miles. It still ran but salt roads hes taken to big of a toll on the body. My present vehicle is at 155,000 and I expect it to run for at least that much more.
    >>>

    Prius Taxis routinely clock up 700,000 km in 5-years of 24-7 operation (legal mandatory retirement is at five years service). This is without anything more than routine servicing.

    But their planetary gear set is often about shot at that point, and may strip off teeth if worked hard from there. The combustion and electric engines do not lose power with time, and do not wear out, if serviced as per the book.

  109. daddylonglegs says:
    March 6, 2014 at 11:56 pm
    Chaori Solar would also be one to avoid:
    =====================================
    No worries, all they have to do is file Chapter 11. Oh, wait… ;)

  110. Good comparisons between energy efficiency, and thus CO2 emissions, of electric v fossil fuel cars.

    I did a simple calculation a few months ago from information published by UK government to look at the benefits of Heatpumps (air and ground source) – by a small margin installing a heat pump rather than a gas boiler , will Increase CO2 emissions due to the losses through electricity transmission.

  111. ralfellis says March 6, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    Where indeed.

    Politically, economically, and socially, the UK (and much of Europe) are on the cusp of an energy crisis, with looming blackouts, and our governments play the fiddle while the city London goes dark. Nero fell on his sword. Will cameron do the same?

    The bigger question might be “when will Cameron be put to the sword?” Casting the next election date in stone was like putting wax on a death warrant, awaiting only the seal. A day is eternity in politics and there are 426 to go before 7th May 2015. Long knife sharpening has barely begun and is currently focused on gaffing EU farmed Salmon anyway. You kippers of a sort may follow for tea when the eventual battlefield smoke clears.

  112. Well, since we are talking about the life time of the internal combustion engine; I have a 1977 Porsche 924 (manufactured in 1976) that I rebuilt the engine myself, though took the block to a machine shop to bore new larger cylinders with one requiring a new sleeve. I then drove the car later that year during Christmas break from Canada to Mexico down the west coast of Washington state, Oregon and California. I still have the car and its still drivable, though it hasn’t been driven for over a decade.
    I had an enjoyable 48 hour day once with the car when I was travelling back home to Vancouver (not the one just across the river from Portland) from Spokane and at the border my fuel pump stopped working. Maybe I shouldn’t have tested the maximum speed of the vehicle earlier that day. Anyways I walked through the night and into the early morning till I got to a mall and a phone, called my sister, got picked up by a friend of hers. Went to a auto parts store and got a new pump. Back to the border and installed it (electric, external) and got home then slept for 16 hours or so.
    I also have a Honda Civic that had its engine destroyed when I replaced the starter motor and forgot to tighten the timing belt bolt. Live and learn. I forgot on my Porsche once as well, for reasons I wont go into, but the valves clear the pistons throughout the pistons stroke range, so no damage.
    I have more car stories, but most of this century I have ridden my bike, or walked wherever I go. I probably have one of the lowest carbon footprints of any climate science researcher, and probably lower than 97% of all greenies. And I don’t even believe in AGW.

  113. Garfy says: @ March 6, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    …long ago that systems have been put hath – efficient systems – to drastically reduce fuel consumption…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Correct.

    Long ago in the early 1980s my boy friend, a metallurgical engineer, worked on a project which added a device to a stock V-8 with a carburetor and got over 50 mpg in on the road tests in the city of Boston MA. We went out to dinner to celebrate the successful test.

    The device never made it to market.

  114. ralfellis says: @ March 6, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    Politically, economically, and socially, the UK (and much of Europe) are on the cusp of an energy crisis, with looming blackouts, and our governments play the fiddle while the city London goes dark. Nero fell on his sword. Will cameron do the same?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No he will take his ill gotten gains, robbed from pensioners freezing to death, and escape to Costa Rica, the Philippines, or Croatia. Croatia offers great beauty, that appealing Mediterranean climate and tax breaks for retirees, but may be a wee bit too close to the people he scammed.

  115. TheLastDemocrat says: @ March 6, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    What is limiting the life of internal combustion engine cars NOW is the futuristic insistence upon computer-controlled engine as a means for eeking out a tiny bit more mileage relative to a carburetor.

    …This has an effect on lower-wage earners: they cannot reliably get an auto that can be brought up to spec without great expense…

    In the ol’ days, plenty of things could be done to a car to keep it going down the road a few more miles in a relatively safe and relatively efficient manner….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes we took our ‘Modern fuel injected ‘Ford Torus and dumped it at a very cheap price, with no warranty of any kind on someone. It crapped out a few days later, to the surprise of everyone involved.

    We took the money and bought a 1987 pick-up with a Holley carburetor. I do not care about the mileage, I care that I can repair it for less that $1,000 a pop often at home, and that the truck is heavy enough and powerful enough to haul a trailer.

    That Ford Taurus got worse miles than my 1976 Cutlass with a carburetored V-8 (and 5-spd trany) and lasted less than half the miles.

  116. Since the US gets 50% of electricity from coal the following more accurately describes the lectric vehicle.

    An electric vehicle will produce more carbon dioxide emissions and use more energy than its gasoline counterpart of the same size and weight. For example, let’s use our Hollywood activists impressing his friends with his overpriced electric vehicle powered by an electrical power plant burning coal on a Navajo Indian reservation in Arizona. For comparison purposes there are 115,000 Btu’s in a gallon of gasoline that will take a car of comparable size to the electric around 40 miles. Therefore a gasoline car will use 2875 Btu’s per mile. Meanwhile burning 115,000 btu’s of coal loses around 70% of its energy content in the conversion from coal to heat to steam to mechanical energy(generator) to electricity. (There’s a little problem called entropy where energy that does work creates losses in the form of lost heat, noise, friction, etc.) So of the original energy content we get 34,500 Btu’s of electricity. We’re not through yet because we lose another 5% warming bird’s feet in the power line going 1500 miles to Los Angeles. Then we convert the electrical energy to chemical energy (charging a battery) another 40% to 60% loss. Then we convert back to electricity to drive the wheel train another 10% minimum until we finally show up at the Oscars. So from the original 115,000 Btu’s of coal burned we probably get to utilize less than 15,000 Btu’s to actually move the vehicle. Assuming that the electric car also gets 40 miles to 115,000 btu’s we would have to burn about 900,000 Btu’s of coal to generate enough electricity to go the same distance as 1 gallon of gasoline. In short, the only accomplishment of the electric car is to move its emissions to Arizona rather than down town Los Angeles make a Hollywood moron feel good and increase fossil fuel demand.

  117. Another Geologist’s Take says:
    March 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    clipe and Mac…I wasn t trying to argue that the green energy industry isn’t a subsidy hog, but if a comaprison is made then the subsidies that are and have gone to the fossil fuel industry need to be in the equation to make it a fair comparison.

    A quick look and I found this….jeez guys you’re acting rabid.

    http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf.

    The point is oil, natural gas and coal companies have gotten lots of breaks over the years. I’m sure that a lot of the lobbying money spent by them in Washington has been fruitful. No value judgement here. Hell, you don’t think the oil companies are now raking in money from the green subsidies too?

    AGT, I went through the document you linked to. Incredible. There is not a single example of a direct subsidy to an oil company. Some third world countries sell gasoline at a discounted rate to people but that is government subsidizing oil, not oil companies.

    The IMF introduces the concept of “corrective taxes” for such things as CO2 emissions ($25/ton). These are a major part of their subsidy estimates. In fairness to the IMF they appear to lay these subsidies at the foot of government while you place them at the door of the oil companies.

    And then they write this:

    A careful assessment of the non-carbon corrective fuel taxes for other countries would take into account a variety of local factors that affect the willingness-to-pay for reductions in these negative externalities, including, most importantly, income, local emission rates, population density, travel delays, and the frequency of traffic accidents.

    I’m surprised a geologist would associate an oil industry subsidy with traffic accidents and travel delays.

  118. Gail Combs says, March 7, 2014 at 4:31 am
    It’s not just electronics. Dual mass flywheels on small injected turbo diesels are another mid-life crisis component for most.

  119. Rhys Jaggar says:
    March 6, 2014 at 10:17 am
    I guess it depends on whether you consider the billions spent bombing Iraq to get US oil corporations a new risk-free dividend stream for 30 years a subsidy or not.
    ============
    psst: You can get oil from Canada without any bombs. You only need to build a pipeline. Guess which option the US will choose?

  120. battery charging is 90% efficient
    ==========
    perhaps in perfect conditions with brand new batteries, not including losses for converting 120 VAC to high voltage DC.

  121. ever tried to use your cell phone in cold weather? unless you leave your cell phone next to your body so it stays warm, your battery will quickly show low charge. electric cars use cell phone technology batteries, but are damned inconvenient to keep next to your body.

  122. The situation changes for a car owner if the car is done right. Driving a Tesla is a “come to Jesus” experience. And as I write, a third cross-continent (and this time, return) trip is being undertaken using only the free-for-life highway power outlets called SuperChargers, by the smaller battery car (60kWh). The car is on the return leg, in the dead of winter (at the moment, there is only one route open, that goes through the northern states like SD.)

    Even this lower powered (vs the 85kWh model) car gets twice the range of ANY electric competitor. It gets the best ratings ever by MT, CR, and other top-tier auto reviewers. As for the battery, it will take about 10-15 years to decline to 70% capacity, the nominal “end of life”, at which point it will have more decades of use and value as part of a storage/backup facility for a residence, business, utility or in a SuperCharging station. And then it can be 100% recycled for its components.

    As for efficiency “well to wheel” calculations, many owners are inspired to invest in solar home systems with about a 6 yr “payback”, and even before that point are seeing miniscule or even negative cost impacts of charging daily.

    In every local or national market entered, Tesla is receiving orders in excess of its ability to deliver. The next in line, China, is ramping at the fastest rate ever.

    Advertising is zero. Musk’s take on branding: “Make great product that people want to buy.” He has ordered service centers (sole source of net profit for gas car makers) to operate at break-even. Owners are gob-smacked when they experience the difference in approach, attitude, and priorities that makes.

    In about 3 yrs, the mid-market version (the 200mi $35K Model E) will hit the streets, and will sell an order of magnitude more.

    Test-drive one, if you are prepared to risk becoming a Tesla-obsessive.

  123. bonanzapilot says:
    March 6, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    D.J. Hawkins says:
    March 6, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    Don’t you mean 7,500/(1-.36)=$11,719? If you are right about the $20K+, I just might just go out and buy one with the rest of the free money you gave me for my irrigation system. I’m very anti-subsidy because they distort markets; but as long as they are handing them out, I want my share.

    At a 36% marginal tax rate, for every dollar I earn, I hand Uncle Sam $0.36. How many dollars do I need to earn in order to owe $7,500? (0.36)X = 7500.or X = 7500/(0.36). My comparison may not have been altogther a good one. It would have been more proper to say, it’s as if the government pretended you made $20,833 less than you actually did when you were calculating your taxes. Or, you would need that much in deductions to equal that tax credit at that marginal rate.

  124. D.J. Hawkins says:>>>
    Got it. We were both saying the same thing but from different points of view.

  125. TheLastDemocrat says:
    March 6, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    What is limiting the life of internal combustion engine cars NOW is the futuristic insistence upon computer-controlled engine as a means for eeking out a tiny bit more mileage relative to a carburetor

    I remember my old 1984 Buick Riviera with a quadrajet carburetor was u/s for a week because of a computer chip malfunction.

  126. By the way, I have the Chilton’s Auto Repair Manual 1980-1997 at hand.

    Need specifications or finding error codes via A/C controls?

  127. The Pius is actually pretty good as a city taxi. Excellent range, and the cars do 150,000km / 100,000mi pa. The long range means less down time filling up too. And the battery amortises over 700T km.

    What use is this to people who aren’t taxi driver??

  128. Dispatching electric power. The note above about the US grid losing 7% on transmission is correct, but incomplete. Additional losses are due to TLR’s, or when backup power is used to maintain voltage in the system so it does not crash when the load goes up. Lord Monckton’s 67% estimate is very close to the truth (in the US) when this is factored in and probably spot on in the UK. All electricity grids have to maintain voltage under all conditions or they fail, this is the main reason solar and wind will never be primary sources of grid power. They can only supplement coal, natural gas or nuclear. This fact is often ignored by the media. Also, consider that TLR’s (think congestion on the grid) are more frequent and more severe the more solar and wind are used. So solar and wind decrease efficiency.

  129. Fascinating rundown on the Tesla Brian H, must get myself one, how long do you think it would take to drive from Melbourne to Alice Springs? (2300 km or 1430 miles)

  130. “Skeptik says:

    March 8, 2014 at 11:04 am”

    The Tesla, albeit a good machine, is not the machine you, or I, would want to buy (IMO). You would want the Fisker Karma. It is a petrol-electric powered car. This is the best, with todays technology, possible combination for fuel/energy efficiency for electric motor power, driven by batteries and then with backup fossile fuled power geneation. The petrol engine only generates power to recharge the bateries and drive the electric motors. This technology was invented in the early 20th century (Circa 1903).

  131. “Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient.”

    That’s one you got right.

    “Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient”

    No. Its around 35% -37% for coal and open cycle gas turibines and bunker old and wood burners. Less if they have to constantly throttle nack to make way for reneable enertgy.

    Only combined cycle gas turbines breach 50%, and then not by much.

    ” transmission to end user is 67% efficient”

    Utter rubbish. 97% is typical.

    “battery charging is 90% efficient”

    That’s highly dependent on charge rates and the battery and charger technology, but its in the right ball park.

    “and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient”

    in the ball park
    ” so that the fuel efficiency of an electric auto is – er – also 27%.”

    Wrong for so many reasons – see above

    “However, the electric auto requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.”

    Totally unjustified assertion. And with dynamic braking you actually get most of any losses incurred n acceleration, back in deceleration.

    You have some points to make, but sloppy research and fudged figures and simple bland assertins that have no foundation in actual engineering reality jist make you look foolish.

Comments are closed.