Biden Climate Executive Order: Government Vehicles to be Electric

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart; Libertarians rejoice! Thanks to President Biden’s latest climate brainstorm, in the future the US Federal Government will only function within 200 miles of the nearest operational EV charging station, and only when a fully charged EV is available in the car pool.

From the Biden White House;

Leverage the Federal Government’s Footprint and Buying Power to Lead by Example

  • Consistent with the goals of the President’s Build Back Better jobs and economic recovery plan, of which his clean energy jobs plan is a central pillar, the order directs the federal agencies to procure carbon pollution-free electricity and clean, zero-emission vehicles to create good-paying, union jobs and stimulate clean energy industries.
  • In addition, the order requires those purchases be Made in America, following President Biden’s Buy American executive order. The order also directs agencies to apply and strictly enforce the prevailing wage and benefit guidelines of the Davis Bacon and other acts and encourage Project Labor Agreements. These actions reaffirm that agencies should work to ensure that any jobs created with funds to address the climate crisis are good jobs with a choice to join a union.
  • The order directs each federal agency to develop a plan to increase the resilience of its facilities and operations to the impacts of climate change and directs relevant agencies to report on ways to expand and improve climate forecast capabilities – helping facilitate public access to climate related information and assisting governments, communities, and businesses in preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change.
  • The order directs the Secretary of the Interior to pause on entering into new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or offshore waters to the extent possible, launch a rigorous review of all existing leasing and permitting practices related to fossil fuel development on public lands and waters, and identify steps that can be taken to double renewable energy production from offshore wind by 2030. The order does not restrict energy activities on lands that the United States holds in trust for Tribes. The Secretary of the Interior will continue to consult with Tribes regarding the development and management of renewable and conventional energy resources, in conformance with the U.S. government’s trust responsibilities.
  • The order directs federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies as consistent with applicable law and identify new opportunities to spur innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure. 

Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/27/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-executive-actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad-create-jobs-and-restore-scientific-integrity-across-federal-government/

Of course, it may take some time to completely replace the government vehicle fleet, and I suspect government employees working in remote regions will try to cling on to their gasoline and diesel vehicles, so the process of Federal withdrawal from unpowered regions may take a long time.

4.7 23 votes
Article Rating
287 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mikebartnz
January 27, 2021 10:15 pm

Where is Duane to put his spin on this insanity as he thinks Biden is sane.
I love the leading photo. Very appropriate.

Last edited 7 months ago by mikebartnz
Steven Fraser
Reply to  mikebartnz
January 28, 2021 4:06 am

I thought putting Air Force One and the Marine helicopters would be a great image, too.

Joe the non climate expert
Reply to  Steven Fraser
January 28, 2021 5:31 am

How far and how fast will Air Force one Fly powered by electricity
or bio fuels?

How fast and deadly will that F-35 be powered by bio fuels?

George Tetley
Reply to  Joe the non climate expert
January 28, 2021 6:00 am

Why , oh , why, did the American constitution not have an IQ TEST for Presidents? It seems that Democrat Presidents lack even stupidity GOD please help the world.

Bryan A
Reply to  George Tetley
January 28, 2021 6:34 am

I’m waiting to see the EV upgrades to Air force One and Marine One and the Limousines. Until they are, Biden can’t utilize them

Big Al
Reply to  Bryan A
January 28, 2021 11:22 pm

Thought I saw something, Biden has not utilized AF1 going on nine days. Maybe buzz on down to Florida. Pick up football. After all, The President has the nuclear football. In Florida. In about 1973, Trump’s current residence was suggested and ? referred to as Summer White House. This game not over.

George Daddis
Reply to  George Tetley
January 28, 2021 7:13 am

But it does spell out the powers the Federal government in general and the President in particular.
No where does it say POTUS can mandate that a group of employees “must have a choice to join a union”.

There are long standing processes where labor groups can make that choice for themselves.

Gunga Din
Reply to  George Daddis
January 28, 2021 3:21 pm

Sounds like it’s time for a legal challenge.
SCOTUS ruled that no one can be forced to pay dues or, the euphemistically called, “Fair Share” if they are not a member of the union.
My last AFSCME “Fair Share” document admitted they spent just shy of 48% of dues on politics.

So Joe is saying that only companies with a labor union are allowed to get a Government contract… where a large chunk of members’ dues are sent to liberal causes and politicians.

(Fair Share victims could object to the political part have their “Fair Share” reduced by 48%. Via a lawsuit when they first implemented “Fair Share” without telling us we could “object” to the political %, they had to send us the document every year and we had to “object” every year.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
January 28, 2021 4:02 pm

Take it from someone who worked in an educational institution: the “Fair Share” thing is a fraud. The incremental cost of bargaining for additional members is negligible, so they use average cost instead to charge people who don’t join the union. Thus people who don’t like the union end up subsidizing it anyway.

The only significant incremental cost is in protecting members who are in danger of being fired because of poor performance or very significant behavioral problems. In other words, the union is protecting the jobs of people whom the organization and the people it serves would be better off without.

davetherave
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
January 29, 2021 1:54 pm

Serious question: Why on earth do Unions demand that pay raises depend on length of employment and not performance?

Thanks

beng135
Reply to  George Tetley
January 28, 2021 8:44 am

They never, ever imagined such idiocy could get that far up the political ladder.

Last edited 7 months ago by beng135
davetherave
Reply to  beng135
January 28, 2021 1:34 pm

We Americans evidently make VERY tall ladders.

Bryan A
Reply to  beng135
January 28, 2021 7:19 pm

And Politicians ascend those tall ladders to the level of their incompetence

Tom in Florida
Reply to  George Tetley
January 28, 2021 3:04 pm

Because originally in order to vote you had to a male.
(don’t give me any crap over stating the facts)

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Joe the non climate expert
January 28, 2021 9:26 pm

The F-35 will spend its life in hangers waiting for parts whatever fuel it uses.

The F-35 has done more to destroy American air power than the MiG15 did in Korea.

Last edited 7 months ago by Walter Sobchak
Steven Fraser
Reply to  Joe the non climate expert
February 1, 2021 11:32 pm

I was thinking more like an extension cord….

StephenP
Reply to  mikebartnz
January 28, 2021 7:20 am

Seeing the tank plugged into the charger reminded me that in WW2 the British tanks ran on gasoline and when hit by a German 88 had such a tendency to burst into flames that the Germans called them Tommy Cookers.
I would be very concerned with the weight of lithium required to run a tank will put them into a similar category as regards flammability.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  StephenP
January 28, 2021 7:35 am

Obviously, the “science” that Joe is so astutely following says that a battery breakthrough is just around the corner, and it will allow a military tank to go 500 miles on a rechargeable “button” cell.

Dmacleo
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 28, 2021 8:03 am

CR2032 for the win….

Richard Page
Reply to  StephenP
January 28, 2021 7:39 am

Those were early American Sherman tanks that were called Tommy cookers supplied by the lend-lease program. When the US used the same tanks they called them Zippo’s for the same reason. British tanks and later US tanks did not have the same problem.

DSchmitt
Reply to  StephenP
January 28, 2021 8:15 am

German, British, Commonwealth and American tanks all ran on gasoline. The Soviets were the main user of diesel fueled tanks but also had gasoline fueled tanks.

Most “brewing up” was caused by ammunition exploding.

Last edited 7 months ago by DSchmitt
mcswell
Reply to  StephenP
January 28, 2021 8:52 am

Get real: this is *not* about tanks, no matter what the picture at the top of this page.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 9:49 am

If we are going to be fossil-fuel free by 2035 where is the military going to get the high octane fuel for the tanks? You can bet with no residential or business demand almost all refineries will get shut down.

Does Venezuela have any refineries? Bet they do by 2035! Then our military will be dependent on a Socialist enemy nation.

Philo
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 31, 2021 10:42 am

The tanks use JP-4, so that is not an issue. Every jet plane built uses JP-4 so it’s readily available.

DonM
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 10:41 am

You are right. It is not about tanks. It is about showmanship.

It’s not about things that won’t work into the scheme.

It is not about:

Tanks,
Airplanes (airforce 1 ???);
Trains (amtrack???);
Fire trucks;
Fire boats;
Semi trucks;
Marine travel & transport;
Rural transportation;
Snow plows & road maintenance;
It is not about efficiency of any kind

Tell me what you think it is about.

mcswell
Reply to  DonM
January 28, 2021 10:46 am

Automobiles, as per the link I posted elsewhere in this thread.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 11:25 am

And when all the ICE auto’s are gone how many refineries will still be open? What will all the uses listed by Don do for fuel when all the refineries are closed?

You can’t just run away from this by saying you only meant automobiles!

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 12:57 pm

I don’t know how many refineries will be open, but it will be sufficient for fuels needed by things other than automobiles. That’s called supply and demand.

And you can stop the stupid comments about running away.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 4:12 pm

Are you not listening? How will *any* of them remain open when you remove 2/3rds of their market? Transport is 66% of oil usage! How do you suggest a refinery turn a profit when 66% of their market disappears?

If you don’t know how many will be open then how can you possibly know that enough fuel will be available for things other than automobiles. Sounds a lot like a religious belief to me!

And you *have* been running away. You haven’t posted anything factual to support your claims at all. Nothing.

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 30, 2021 9:43 am

If 2/3 of the market disappears, then 2/3 of the refineries may close. The remaining refineries will do just fine.

It’s not necessary to know how much fuel will be available for other than automobiles, nor how many refineries will remain open. That will take care of itself, just as it always has. Nothing to do with religion.

There, that was easy. Next question?

As for facts, I’ve posted plenty of facts on this page, like the number of refineries in the US (135), and explained how if (and it’s an “if”) 134/135 of the market went away, the remaining refinery could do just fine, thank you. I did not repeat that post in this particular response, because that would be duplicating. If it’s facts you want, then I suggest searching for my handle.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 30, 2021 11:08 am

mc,

You aren’t listening. Refineries are not some general purpose motor able to crank out anything that is needed. Almost all of them depend on transportation fuel for survival. When that goes away they will *all* be hurt. There are very few that depend totally on making fuel stock for plastic feedstock as an example. Take away their fuel market and they won’t be able to make enough off the remaining demand to remain profitable.

Refineries are huge capital investment sinks. You can’t just say they can survive on a 1/3rd of the income they should be making. They wouldn’t be able to afford the interest on their debt or the dividends on their stock. No one would be willing to invest anything further or to loan them any more money.

If your wages are cut by 2/3rds could you pay your mortgage or rent? Could you pay your utilities?

What if that remaining refinery couldn’t expand its output of plastic feedstock? Or it couldn’t do enough blending to meet remaining demands. If a refinery is based on making 15 different blends for California it may not be able to make an additional 10 blends to meet the needs for Michigan winter blends. It wouldn’t matter how much demand Michigan represents. Or say the refinery was only designed to cook X tons of plastic feedstock per day. It wouldn’t matter if the total demand was for X+Y tons, the refinery couldn’t make any money off the Y tons since it couldn’t turn out that much feedstock.Take away the other 2/3rds of their revenue and they would go bankrupt.

Say you are a rancher that has enough pasture for 200 cattle. If every other rancher in the US were to be put out of business for some reason, could this one rancher meet all the demand for hamburger and steak in the entire US? Hell, no he couldn’t. He might make more money because the price for meat would go up be that is not the same thing as being able to meet the demand.

Say you have a pottery barn in Oklahoma that uses a very special kind of red Oklahoma clay. Your production facility only has space for three turning wheels, only one of which is capable of turning out the red Oklahoma clay pottery. The other two turn out standard pottery. For some reason all the other kinds of standard pottery clay is banned one day. Two of your wheels are going to sit idle because they can’t turn out red Oklahoma clay pottery. Will that one remaining wheel bring in enough revenue to pay the lease on your entire warehouse? Will that one wheel be able to meet the demand for *all* pottery? Ans: Nope!

Refineries are the same way.

Analitik
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 31, 2021 2:41 am

What you say about refineries being capital investment sinks constructed on the basis of steady production and hence income applies equally to power plants

Last edited 7 months ago by Analitik
Tsk Tsk
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 4:19 pm

Funny how you can never allow simple supply and demand to work with solar panels.

mcswell
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
January 30, 2021 9:45 am

You mean there’s a surplus or lack of panels?

starzmom
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 3:51 pm

Nowhere in the order are only automobiles mentioned, and nowhere are tanks, humvees, aircraft, heavy trucks and locomotives and other heavy vehicles excluded.

mcswell
Reply to  starzmom
January 30, 2021 9:45 am

I’ve posted many times on this page that I can’t find this order. Do you have a link to it?

Reply to  mcswell
February 3, 2021 12:44 pm

Mcswell,
Sorry for the repeats of the link in the many replies. I searched this string for the word “link” and pasted the link in every post that requested a link without checking the poster. Your request was repeated many times. The link will automatically download a .pdf of the EO. It was the only way to find a real copy of the signed EO that I was able to discover. As of 02-03-2017, the Congressional Record

https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders

does not seem to post a.pdf copy of it, just this link via a downloadable Excel spreadsheet. They post copies of other EOs of that same date and following dates.

mcswell
Reply to  starzmom
January 30, 2021 9:54 am

Yes they are excluded, by the definition of “government fleet” given elsewhere–see my comment a couple paras below.

Richard Page
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 5:39 pm

First comment thread and you’re starting to make exceptions. No tanks, planes, ships, industrial vehicles or trains. Then what? No emergency vehicles, security or police? Pretty soon the majority will be exceptions and the only ones going ev will be a minority of civilian cars and light utility vehicles.

mcswell
Reply to  Richard Page
January 30, 2021 9:52 am

I’m not the one making the exceptions: “The definition of “fleet” for the federal government (regulation FMR 102-34.35) narrows the reportable fleet to cars, trucks, and buses, and excludes motorized off-road equipment.”

Kemaris
Reply to  StephenP
January 28, 2021 10:19 am

EVERYONE’s tanks ran on gasoline, with the exception of the Soviets and the US Marines use of diesel M4 Shermans in the Pacific. It isn’t the fuel that makes a tank burn, it’s the ammunition (generally, unless the hit is in the engine compartment), and the British in the desert had a habit of stuffing the tank full of ammunition to ensure they wouldnt run out.

StephenP
Reply to  Kemaris
January 28, 2021 11:02 am

Would a mass of lithium batteries end up with a similar result?

mcswell
Reply to  mikebartnz
January 28, 2021 8:52 am

No, that is a totally stupid photo, as a moment’s web search would reveal. Biden’s order is about *automobiles*, see e.g. here: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/biden-replace-entire-federal-fleet-electric-vehicles/story?id=75488441. A 2019 GSA report (mentioned in that article) says there are about 645,000 vehicles in that fleet, with a plurality belonging to the Post Office (and hence eminently electifiable, given that those don’t drive far from their overnight parking spots).

And before anyone asks, there is as yet no timeline for this. Also, I have not commented on the cost (which will be substantial), just on the stupidity of the picture, and silly comments in this thread about tanks and other non-automobile vehicles.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 9:46 am

There *is* a timeline for this. It’s 2035! No more fossil fuels after 2035. That entire fleet will have to be replaced with electric vehicles between now and 2035. Good luck getting the charging stations installed for a fleet that large by 2035!

Don’t forget that the PO has a whole fleet of over-the-road trucks plus a plethora of short-haul trucks as well! Those will have to be replace as well.

I wonder what Jeff Bezos thinks about having to replace all of his delivery vehicles by 2035!

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 10:52 am

Given that every automobile in the USG fleet, including the Post Office’s local delivery vehicles, and for that mater every vehicle in Bezos’ fleet, will probably be worn out in 14 years anyway, this doesn’t sound like that hard a task.

I drove a Toyota Corolla for about 14 years, and during that time put on enough miles to drive to the moon (at perigee). By the end of that time, it was still running, but was starting to show symptoms. I would be surprised if most cars in the USG fleet last much longer than that.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 11:34 am

There a LOTS of over-the-road trucks that are way older than 14 years! Those large diesel trucks run forever! And don’t forget that a significant portion of Amazon packages also fly on planes. And so do those of UPS and Fedex.

What are all these going to do when the refineries shut down? Why do you keep avoiding that issue? Is it because you don’t have an answer?

When does the PO start buying new EV’s? If they wait till production is high enough to meet their needs it will probably be close to 2035. Any cars purchased before then will have to be abandoned because they won’t be able to be fueled. They’ll be sold for scrap. Of course I’ll buy one and convert it to propane. Or will propane be banned also? If it is what are all those people with propane grills do for fuel? Will they have to go back to burning wood or charcoal? Maybe I should plant some more oak trees in my back fencerow. Might be an income source in 15 years!

Why do Democrats NEVER consider unintended consequences before developing policies?

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 1:00 pm

Why on earth would you suppose all refineries are going to shut down? Some will, but as you point out there are plenty of uses for petroleum products besides gasoline for automobiles, and some refineries can remain open for those, as well as for the gas-powered automobiles that are still on the road.

And what issue do you pretend I’m running away from? Why don’t you stop and think about the silly ideas you’re posting?

John in Oz
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 2:00 pm

Your attitude is similar to:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Thee is no end to the demands of those that get their own way. Why stop when you are on a roll?


Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 4:27 pm

BECAUSE TRANSPORT IS 66% OF THE OIL USAGE IN THE US!

Take that away and how is *any* refinery supposed to stay in business?

Petroleum products other than for transport only makes up 1/3 of the market for oil. Industry (processing of metals and minerals to production of chemicals and machinery to production of paper, food and textile.) makes up about 10%. Non-energy use is about 15% (mostly plastics). The remaining 9% is agriculture, commercial, and public service.

If you kill fossil fuels like that needed for making metal products and plastics you wind up killing almost 80% of the market for refineries. Steel requires coal and high temps to form it. Plastics need high temps in the cracking furnaces. Electric heat simply can’t supply enough heat to accomplish this.

I simply don’t know how you think you can kill 80% of the oil industry and expect refineries to survive.

What’s going to happen is that we will become 100% dependent on foreign supplies of metal, plastics, and remaining transportation fuel leaving us in a terrible national security position.

You can continue to deny this if you wish. But denial is not a survival trait.

DonM
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 10:43 am

You stated it very simply.

Why didn’t Biden state it that simply?

mcswell
Reply to  DonM
January 28, 2021 10:48 am

I haven’t seen Biden’s statement, if someone has a link I’d appreciate it. I referred to the ABC new post, which I’m hoping was based on Biden’s statement. It was pretty explicit about automobiles.

beng135
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 11:22 am

A 2019 GSA report (mentioned in that article) says there are about 645,000 vehicles in that fleet, with a plurality belonging to the Post Office (and hence eminently electifiable, given that those don’t drive far from their overnight parking spots).

A big effort indeed, and what exactly would be the point of this big effort other than a waste of taxpayer money & resources, and keeping gubermint bureaucrats working?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 1:28 pm

Nice attempted spin there, junior. If you read the actual release, it does not mention cars, it says “vehicles”. It’s ABC that made the interpretation, trying to provide cover for the Commander-in-Thief.

mcswell
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
January 28, 2021 3:27 pm

Like I said above, old guy (senior), I would like to see a link to the actual release. Can you post one?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  mcswell
January 29, 2021 2:21 pm

It is sad to see early senility on display. See the post, penultimate paragraph, “Read more” where it links to the White House fact sheet. Smacking you around is just too easy.

chemman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 3:20 pm

Having been a Vehicle Operations Officer in the Air Force and in charge of the base vehicle feet and a war readiness fleet. So the fact that the government has 645,000 vehicles doesn’t mean they are all cars or light trucks.

As to your comment about the post office and their postal delivery fleet. Check out rural areas where a postal delivery vehicle can drive 300 – 400 miles in a day delivering mail.

mcswell
Reply to  chemman
January 28, 2021 3:31 pm

Can you provide a couple examples of 300-400 mile postal routes? Not saying they don’t exist, I’d just like to know where they are, and how many there are. That’s around 6 hours of 60 mph driving, with very little time left over in an 8 hour shift for picking up the mail from the post office, and stopping at what I assume must be a bunch of mailboxes somewhere out in the boonies to poke the letters in the boxes.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 6:42 pm

You really don’t know much about rural areas do you?

When I was in high school I had a before/after school job delivering daily newspapers on a rural route. My driver and I drove over 100 miles every morning and 100 miles every evening. 200 miles a day.

A rural postal worker may have to drive clear around a section (3 miles) to deliver to one rural farmhouse. And then drive back to get to the main road.

Lot’s of rural carriers pick up the mail early, early in the morning and don’t get home till after 5pm. 300miles in a 9/10 hour day wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

Rural population density is far less than what you imagine. Most of the rural population in eastern Kansas has a population density of 6 people per sq mile. In western KS many counties are less than 3 people per square mile. When you say “a bunch of mailboxes” you are describing urban mail carriers, not rural carriers.

Gunga Din
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 3:45 pm

As I recall, Obama had the Pentagon paying something like $130.00 dollars a gallon for (experimental?) “Bio-Jet Fuel”.
I think he also spent something like $100,000,000 dollars on a military base to go solar so that they (might) save $1,000,000 dollars a year on electricity. (Maintenance cost of the solar panels were not included.)

For a few decades now, the liberal (US liberals) Presidents have had a history of forcing the military to be their “social experiments” laboratory.

In The Real World
Reply to  mcswell
January 29, 2021 2:52 am

The German post office /GHL tried electric vehicles for their deliveries . They had their own company ,[ Street Scooter ], and built tens of thousands of vehicles .

Although the media tries to censor the truth about EVs , the fact is that they were not up to the job .Frequently not being able to complete their days work ,not being able to have any heat in them in the winter , and the company lost Millions until the whole EV production business was closed down in 2020.

And the whole idea of EVs will never work as hardly any country has enough electrical generation capacity to be able to charge them up .

Total insanity …

davetherave
Reply to  In The Real World
January 30, 2021 10:16 am

Let me interject here…

I live in the mountains and driving here is either going up or going down. Because of the conditions here EV vehicles will not work. The routes are very long and the EV batteries will run down much faster because of the loads on the vehicle when you have to drive upwards half of the day.

In The Real World
Reply to  davetherave
January 31, 2021 3:14 am

It is true that EVs do not work very well in mountainous areas , but Creepy Joe will just sign an executive order making all roads run downhill.

davetherave
Reply to  In The Real World
January 31, 2021 7:56 am

That Biden fellow is absolutely brilliant.

Iain Russell
January 27, 2021 10:19 pm

Just how much did Elon punch into Biden’s election campaign??

mikebartnz
Reply to  Iain Russell
January 27, 2021 10:31 pm

As he has moved to Texas I think you need to give him some slack as I don’t think he believes in real pipe dreams. He is just forward thinking and as a business man he doesn’t object to subsidies when he can reap them.

RayB
Reply to  mikebartnz
January 27, 2021 10:49 pm

He is setting himself to leave earth anyway.. he doesn’t care. He cares about the money he can make to develop his Martian Citadel.

Rune
Reply to  RayB
January 28, 2021 1:56 am

When you say “cares about the money” it sounds like a bad thing, but the end of your sentence states that he cares about developing his Martian Citadel which is actually a very cool thing.

So I am somewhat confused. Did you intend to criticize or praise Musk?

RayB
Reply to  Rune
January 28, 2021 9:04 pm

Sorry for the confusion. It was not a criticism. It was not also praises. I really don’t think the guy is a genius in any way… just the right people around him.

davetherave
Reply to  RayB
January 31, 2021 8:00 am

Musk not a genius? I have not been able to get anyone to invest BILLIONS into any of my ideas, have you? Wait a sec….. did I just call myself dumb?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Iain Russell
January 28, 2021 10:31 am

One would hope the Federal agencies have at least a minimum reliability standard for their vehicles before implementing this order. If not you can bet the tax increases to support it will be notable.

Hartog
January 27, 2021 10:32 pm

If they manage to turn off Trump, we will soon see the idea of five year plans come up like in the old Soviet Union and Chairman Xi’s China. Planning, planning and more planning.

Sara
Reply to  Hartog
January 28, 2021 5:00 am

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ever hear of “The best-laid plans of mice and men gang aft a-gley”??

fred250
January 27, 2021 10:36 pm

Operating in places like Syria will be such fun ! 🙂

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  fred250
January 28, 2021 6:10 am

You know, it might not be all bad. Red states just need to umm, “hinder” the installation of EV charging stations. That way, officious Demonrat do-gooders will be limited to the range of their vehicles. That would keep them out of the hair of the rest of us.

Richard Page
Reply to  fred250
January 28, 2021 7:50 am

Under the new regime, ‘foreign adventurism’ will be severely curtailed unless the foreign military in question only fights on foot or (worst case scenario) on bicycles. The US military will be encouraged to only use electric powered drones in these situations – assault rifles will be replaced by electro-chemical weapons which don’t contribute to ‘pollution’ but until that new technology is developed will restrict their activities to name-calling and harsh language of a non-sexist, non-racist type and uncritical of cultural stereotypes.

Do I really need to put a sarc tag on this?

Richard Page
Reply to  fred250
January 28, 2021 8:44 am

Not forgetting, of course, the climate litigation from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and others against the USA and other countries for releasing dangerous levels of CO2 into the atmosphere of said countries from weapons discharge! sarc

Reply to  fred250
January 28, 2021 9:26 am

Imagine Smart Meters stop charging for what ever reason 😀
Game over ? Or paused ?

January 27, 2021 10:37 pm

Our dementia-ridden President Biden is not calling the shots on this administration.
Let’s be clear about that poor dumb ass Biden White House.
The Biden White House couldn’t buy a military expert to correct their bad stuff if they wanted to.
So any EO’s and decisions that come from the WH on Biden’s name are those of his puppeteer controllers and are disconnected from reality.
Dementia Joe wouldn’t know an M1 Abrams tank or M2 Bradley, an MRAP vehicle, or an armored HummVee from a Fiat 500 or a hole in the ground. The WH democrats really are that scary stupid.
Really.
Dementia Joe wouldn’t know the difference of any of these US military weapons and a Chinese knock-off of a Russian tank or fighter. That is how bad the disconnect is between the shit that comes out this Biden White House and reality.
Be afraid. Really afraid… with this Biden dumb-ass White House on military matters.

Last edited 7 months ago by joelobryan
n.n
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 27, 2021 11:36 pm

They can’t discern sex and gender, boy and girl, adult and child, tolerance and normalization, justice and social justice, climate and weather, and babies are “burdens” or profit in the progressive vernacular.

Reply to  n.n
January 27, 2021 11:47 pm

When a today’s 16 yr old male or female can’t figure out what’s hanging (or not) between their legs…
then wondering what’s real in the world and what’s fantasy is a Democrat’s dream.

We are living in really ffff-d up world. A Creepy Joe Biden World.

George Tetley
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 28, 2021 6:07 am

Has not ,”creepy Joe ” got some sexual misdemeanors ” with underaged,?

DonM
Reply to  George Tetley
January 28, 2021 10:55 am

The story line is that Little Joey was mistreated in Catholic school, so they sent him off to military school (where he would be treated more in line with his sensitive nature??).

There is no story line that he was beginning to go off the rails, and that they needed to get him away from the little things that he found so enticing that he would get into trouble or embarrass his family.

Ron Long
Reply to  n.n
January 28, 2021 1:48 am

So, n.n., you think the transgender crowd, the dedictomy and addadicktomy generation, will be driving those electric tanks, hummers, etc mentioned by Joel? Let’s hope Biden just sells out to China and we don’t have to try to defend ourselves, what a tremendous decline in our great nation.

Gunga Din
Reply to  n.n
January 28, 2021 3:54 pm

He’s just “following the science”, sort of, sometimes, if it’s Politically Correct Science.

Phillip Bratby
January 27, 2021 10:47 pm

As we just read, “You can’t fix stupid”.

mcswell
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 28, 2021 8:53 am

Right, and 90% of the comments on this page fall into that category.

Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 9:27 am

And yours makes the 100 full 😀

DonM
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 11:08 am

mcswell,

If all Biden is doing is what you posted, why didn’t his handlers just state what you posted?

mcswell
Reply to  DonM
January 28, 2021 1:01 pm

What handlers are you referring to?

DonM
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 3:38 pm

The ones that write the copy for him.
The ones that provide him with his options … and then press him on which option to go with.

The ones that don’t get confused and say “200,000,000 people have died of the virus”.

The ones that don’t get confused and say, that 200,000,000 doses will be enough for the 300 people that need them.

The ones that don’t call Harris ‘president elect Harris’.

The ones that circle and try to figure out how to cover for Biden when he refers to Harris’ husband as Kamalas’ wife.

The ones that cover try to cover for him when he says that poor kids are just as smart as white kids.

The one that called republicans ‘fckers’.

Do you still seriously & honestly think Biden can plan, and follow through on, daily activities all by himself?

paul courtney
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 5:01 pm

Mr. Swell: How much of the 90% are your comments? Surely the one where you admit you never read Biden’s comment (relied on ABC??!!) is in.
I have often said USPS is ideal customer for EVs, yet there appear to be none in the fleet. Why no post office EVs? There were EVs when Obama was Pres, yet no post office EVs. Evidently the USPS doesn’t want them. It’s like the USPS won’t have them, Obama and Bush were unable to force them on the post office. Wonder why?

RayB
January 27, 2021 10:52 pm

I heard that the Pelosis bought shares in Tesla some days ago, before this announcement. Clearly an insider trading move.

Ab Mix-O'Lydian
Reply to  RayB
January 27, 2021 11:15 pm

You “heard”? Where? Got a source?

DonM
Reply to  Ab Mix-O'Lydian
January 28, 2021 3:38 pm

Their disclosure records

Last edited 7 months ago by DonM
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 27, 2021 11:53 pm

Surely they will give all the capital gains to black people.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 12:04 am

Pelosi and her hubby are just contemplating how they can do make insider trades on this info.

Rune
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 2:03 am

At first I agreed with your comment, but… Was this idea floated during Biden’s campaign? It seems “mandate fed gov to buy only american products (when feasible)” would have been a good message to campaign on.

OTOH, spelling out what he intended to do about the pipeline and drilling grants would surely have cost him votes.I doubt Biden was very clear on that subject prior to the election. If I’m correct, then I feel there is a lesson to be learned here.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 7:26 am

Eric, as someone living in the UK I have always been amazed at the staggering amounts of money that are spent contesting US elections. In the UK election spending is closely regulated.

I am also amazed at the wealth that full time politicians in the US manage to accumulate during their political career.

Last edited 7 months ago by Dave Andrews
Dmacleo
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 8:05 am

think back to HRC as SoS spending money on that and not overseas security.

menace
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 8:22 am

Says she also bought Apple options

Coming soon: a bill requiring that everyone have GPS/5G cell phones and anyone who can’t “afford” the upgrade with be given govt provided I-phones paid with OPM. The bill will also include massive subsidies to expand 5G networks.

Neo
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 11:26 am

Pelosi also bought into Crowdstrike just before we found out that SolarWinds had been hacked.

Roger Knights
Reply to  RayB
January 28, 2021 5:21 am

I heard that the Pelosis bought shares in Tesla some days ago”

Just in time to miss the boat. TSLA is falling fast after yesterday’s poor Earnings Report.

DonM
Reply to  Roger Knights
January 28, 2021 11:02 am

They bought future options ….

George Tetley
Reply to  RayB
January 28, 2021 6:12 am

Yes Sir $1,000,000 plus and she is in the press portrait just your girl next door

John V. Wright
January 27, 2021 10:55 pm

I wonder if Biden understands that electric vehicles are powered by fossil fuels…

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 27, 2021 11:09 pm

In fact it requires far more ff usage simply to declare that your personal transport device isn’t emitting any “greenhouse gases” (to virtue signal for your friends).

Reply to  John V. Wright
January 27, 2021 11:16 pm

Coal and nat gas powered Tesla’s are the norm. NO Tesla owner is charging his/her T-car from wind or solar. The electric grid they are plugged in to for recharge requires reliable electricity from nat gas, coal, nuclear, or hydro. Wind and solar are bad jokes on America.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 28, 2021 12:07 am

Wind and solar are bad jokes everywhere. The UK was getting more power from coal this week.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 28, 2021 12:54 am

Wind power electricity is a F’n bad joke on us all.

MarkW
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 28, 2021 8:50 am

But there was a 5 minute stretch sometime last year where wind provided 30% of the UK’s power. Doesn’t that prove that wind is ready to take over?
Griff assured us that this was the case.

starzmom
Reply to  John V. Wright
January 28, 2021 6:12 am

The “Beast” presidential vehicle is going to have to pull a trailer for its batteries.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  starzmom
January 28, 2021 10:55 am

They might have to commission an 18 Wheeler. Spiff up the sleeper for Biden and fill the trailer with Li-po’s

Prjindigo
January 27, 2021 11:00 pm

Lay out the science to the GOP and let them use it to impeach Biden for fraudulent criminal presidential orders. Make the next 3 years about doing ACTUAL science, not fraud.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Prjindigo
January 27, 2021 11:55 pm

Impeach him for willfully crippling the US economy. That will certainly cause more deaths than Jan 6.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2021 10:57 am

Can’t do that. Kamala is next in line. Get rid of her and then you have Pelosi.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Prjindigo
January 28, 2021 4:50 am

Facts and science are not the foundation for political decisions. It is all about emotion. Tell voters what they want to hear, convince them you have their best interests at heart and secure their vote forever. It is truly sad that after soooooo many years voters are still thinking career politicians will tell the truth.

Warren
January 27, 2021 11:06 pm

Great news for my business.
Our US competitors pay half what we pay in Australia for electricity.
Soon they’ll be paying what we pay.
Levels the playing-field for many product lines.
Excellent!
Unfortunately our Chinese competitors will never pay big so we shift manufacture of impacted items to China when the volume justifies it.

Reply to  Warren
January 28, 2021 12:57 am

Scab.
Scabs dry-up and fall off. Like you.

Intelligent Dasein
January 27, 2021 11:09 pm

Does this include the USPS?

Reply to  Intelligent Dasein
January 27, 2021 11:30 pm

Dementia Joe just carried in a bunch of blithering idiots to his White House who can’t even count to 20 … with both shoes off.
And you want them to understand the USPS mail delivery problems?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 12:34 pm

Who is going to pay for the thousands of miles of new copper needed?

mcswell
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 28, 2021 1:02 pm

Some of the same people who paid for all the millions of miles of old copper, I suppose.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 4:29 pm

You didn’t answer the question. Who are some of the same people? Tell us exactly? The rich? The middle class? Business? Government? The poor?

Chris Nisbet
January 27, 2021 11:10 pm

I’d love to see the day come when loony ideas like this have to be backed by some kind of cost-benefit analysis and/or at least give some indication of how much they’ll affect the climate (not CO2 levels).
We currently have no way to tell if any of these lunatic policies have ‘worked’ (we all know they won’t). How can voters make informed judgements about their effectiveness?
We’re going through this same lunacy here in NZ and it seems to go completely unchallenged.
Governments can’t be allowed to continue to do this to us in an effort to fix this non-problem. They are absolutely wrecking the place, and a good number of people are cheering them on.
So frustrating.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
January 28, 2021 12:08 am

Even the USA cant affect climate.

Rhys Read
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
January 28, 2021 5:56 am

They just passed an executive order to include non quantifiable benefits in the cost benefit analysis

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rhys Read
January 28, 2021 9:10 am

Rhys, could you source that? IIRC, cost/benefit analysis procedures for proposed projects are spelled out in Federal Regulations. I know, however, they fudged those in relation to unrealistically low interest rates in the Social Cost of Carbon calculations.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
January 28, 2021 9:06 am

It is my hope that some day an enterprising young “Woodward and Bernstein” journalist will expose the Federal government climate scam.

Warren
January 27, 2021 11:14 pm

Our friends at Austal Ships are ready to cash-in

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 12:08 am

The billionaire elites do not consider themselves part of the solution. They simply want fossil fuels for their grandchildren, whilst the proles toil for their benefit. For that to happen, fossil fuels need to be held for them.

JCalvertN(UK)
Reply to  Warren
January 28, 2021 4:43 am

Ugly boat!

mcswell
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
January 28, 2021 8:55 am

Your point?

DonM
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 11:06 am

His opinion … Ugly boat … that is the point.

I think it looks pretty nice … my opinion, my point.

What the heck is your point?

mcswell
Reply to  DonM
January 28, 2021 1:03 pm

My point is that I don’t see the relevance of ugly to this thread, but maybe he was just making a funny. For the record, I agree with you that it looks like a nice boat.

davetherave
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
January 30, 2021 7:36 pm

I agree. One of the major factors to consider when buying a boat is…. does it have character. This one has none.

zack
Reply to  Warren
January 28, 2021 7:23 am

A more accurate title, “Introducing an animated cartoon of an imaginary electric ferry boat that will spend more time recharging at the dock then plying through the water”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  zack
January 28, 2021 9:45 am

Right. I was going to say, do they just have some so-so CG? Or any real boats.

MarkW
Reply to  Warren
January 28, 2021 8:54 am

Salt water and high voltage electricity. Not a good combination.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Warren
January 28, 2021 11:13 am

If they have to fast-charge the Li-po’s each time they dock the battery replacement costs will make them a bit expensive to operate.

John in Oz
Reply to  Warren
January 28, 2021 2:12 pm

I will believe this is possible when they can make a battery as small as the pie-in-the-sky one shown being replaced that will have sufficient power.

Mr. Lee
January 27, 2021 11:49 pm

Sounds like all federal agencies are going to need bigger budgets, what with their planning and purchasing and whatnot.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Mr. Lee
January 28, 2021 5:59 am

They’ve just decided to go print a few trillion dollars more to pay for it all. Wonder what it’ll feel like running around with a wheelbarrow full of $1,000,000,000 bills trying to buy bread before the prices go up in the afternoon?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Spetzer86
January 28, 2021 9:15 am

Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, German Weimar Republic, etc. are templates, not cautionary tales, for the ideologues.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mr. Lee
January 28, 2021 10:59 am

Oh, yeah. They will definitely need more money. They will get it from that bottomless pit where all the money is at.

Jeff Alberts
January 27, 2021 11:51 pm

Should Pelosi and her husband be brought up on Insider Trading charges?

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/tesla-stock-pelosi-bet-biden-administration

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2021 8:56 am

I believe congress has exempted itself from the insider trading laws.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2021 11:01 am

Who’s going to prosecute her? The Biden administration? I’m guessing that won’t happen.

Peta of Newark
January 28, 2021 12:27 am

This has got to count as a true genuine ‘Let Them Eat Cake‘ moment

Really very prescient if you subscribe to the idea that the original ‘cake’ was the burnt and thus unwanted bits that French bakers cut off loaves of bread coming out of overloaded baking tins.
Normally fed to pigs. In Modern Times= Trough ??something somethings??
(dwellers, snorters, munchers – cant think the word you all use at the mo’)

Overloaded tins being an attempt by the bakers to prove that they were not cheating lying short-changing crooks
English bakers contrived the Baker’s Dozen as an attempt to evade those charges.

Marie even added chalk to their flour
We still do – it’s put their for our own good – as a health improvement measure and if that’s not an admission of what Nutrient Free Mush wheat flour is, wtf is?

No matter the history. Nobody takes any note of History anyway.
Thus, when Joe finds his head moving on a completely different trajectory to the whole rest of his body it will as big a shock ## to him as it is a lovely surprise to ‘most everyone else

## Do demented cabbages actually register shock? Some ‘cabbages’ will assert that they do but, what do cabbages know?
When installed in haha Care Homes, they can’t even remember the names of wives, children, friends or even their own and are required to spend £1,000 per week for someone to change their nappies. **
Such are The Joys of Nutrient-Free Mush-Food

But no, it’s all= Never better, never better…………..
facepalm sigh

** Usually a migrant from Poland.
If/when you get the chance, check out what’s on the shelves of your local Polish delicatessen
Methinks you need A Pole in the White House, not A Wizened Old Stump

And whooda thunk. The White House is now a Care Home for the elderly?

Almost but not quite my ‘White House’, viz: the grammar school I attended 45 years ago, is now a home, but an ordinary one
Several homes/flats in actuality.
Wonders, what might the weekly/monthly rent be in there..
K a week seems a bit steep.

Last edited 7 months ago by Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 28, 2021 1:00 am

Peta,

Why do you insist on your regular, inane copy and paste posted comment that no one reads? Really.

January 28, 2021 12:32 am

I was just thinking yesterday whether we’ll see nuclear powered tanks in my lifetime. The critical mass of Americium-242 needed to sustain fission is apparently as low as 20 grams. A nuclear powered submarine can, go 20 years without a refuel (powered with HEU). During the last US occupation of Iraq the biggest casualty risk was ambushed resupply convoys. Half the cargo consisted of fuel.

Just musing.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
January 28, 2021 1:09 am

The newest US submarines will go their entire life cycle without refuel, i.e. 30 years. The US Navy has spent many billions of dollars on small HEU/Pu reactors that can go that long. But HEU/Pu reactors makes the Liberal Greens go batshit insane.

But it is Liberal Insanity as to why we don’t don’t have nuclear power solving the CO2 emissions scam today.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 28, 2021 7:02 am

“nuclear power solving the CO2 emissions scam today”

That’s a bit of a brain twister. Nowt can solve a scam. Locking the scammers up can deter others in future.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 28, 2021 8:59 am

Solving the problem has never been their goal. Using the problem as an excuse to implement their economic and political schemes is.

Meab
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
January 28, 2021 8:59 am

Nope, The critical mass of Am-242 is about the same as Plutonium, several kg. However, its half-life is only 16 hours. By the time you could fabricate anything out of it, it would have all decayed and no longer exist.

Waza
January 28, 2021 1:01 am

Winston Churchill was lord of the admiralty from 1911-1915.
While in office he investigated, debated and finally got approval to build faster, longer range and bigger gunned warships.
This required conversion from coal to oil power.
In my opinion this is one of the most important strategic decisions of the twentieth century.

The USA military should politely tell the Biden Administration to fo.
Of course the USA military should be experimenting with different weapon systems, electric or whatever, but it,s not about individual vehicles, the whole military strategy decades into the future needs to be considered.

Waza
Reply to  Waza
January 28, 2021 1:43 am

Essentially, before a government made such a strategic decision to make all its vehicles run on batteries, it should have quietly bought up or at least entered partnerships to gain control of enough raw materials to last decades into the future.
When discussing the risk of building bigger more powerful ships Churchill stated “…to shrink from the endeavour was treason to the empire”

starzmom
Reply to  Waza
January 28, 2021 5:55 am

Sadly, the US military at its top levels is staffed by people who think like politicians, not military officers who might need to direct a real war. When you look at how the last couple of real wars have been waged, you can see how this plays out. These politicians posing as military experts will never do what the elected politicians do not want them to do.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  starzmom
January 28, 2021 11:22 am

“Sadly, the US military at its top levels is staffed by people who think like politicians, not military officers who might need to direct a real war.”

Not all generals are created equal, and some do get political, which they should not do, but the U.S. has some good generals.

The U.S. in fact, has a fantastic military, with a lot of dedicated people serving. Serving all of us. God Bless them all.

starzmom
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2021 4:04 pm

I do agree there are some very good and very dedicated people serving, but as my father–a career officer–noted some years ago, any high ranking officer serves at the pleasure of the president, and has to consider the will of Congress as well. If someone ticks off the president, he will be gone sooner rather than later.

I also recall that in 1980, when Jimmy Carter sent the Delta Force into Iran to rescue hostages, he personally made the decision to eliminate sand screens on helicopters, and that decision doomed the mission. Two unit commanders went along rather than tell him NO. Both lost their jobs before Carter lost his. Why do I know this? Both men were friends of my father’s.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  starzmom
January 29, 2021 7:11 am

I think the Iran desert fiasco was a chief cause of the American people losing faith in Carter. It really was a bungled operation.

mcswell
Reply to  Waza
January 28, 2021 9:00 am

Contrary to the duplicitous image at the top of this post, this has nothing to do with your average military vehicle. It might however apply to military automobile pools–when I was in the Navy (early 70s), our ship had a car (or maybe it was a van, that’s a long time ago) assigned for its use when in home port (Pearl). It would make sense IMO for that kind of usage to be electric, since the car never drove that far, and most of the time it sat in its assigned parking spot. (Well, it couldn’t drive far on Oahu, which is about 60 miles north to south, but I doubt cars assigned to ships home ported in San Diego ever drove far, either.)

Analitik
Reply to  mcswell
January 31, 2021 3:21 am

Wow, ONE car per naval vessel being electrified.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Waza
January 28, 2021 11:13 am

“The USA military should politely tell the Biden Administration to fo.”

The U.S. military can’t do that. They don’t tell the civilian government what to do. Some officers may voice their objections in private, and some may voice their objections in public by resigning, but the military is subordinate to the civilian govrnment.

The Obama-Biden administration pulled these same kinds of things with the U.S. military in the past and it did not affect the military readiness of the military or even cause many changes, chiefly because the climate change proposals were completely impractical and no attempt was made to implement much of anything climate change related.

What really hurts the military during a socialist regime like Obama and Biden is they allow the military readiness to deteriorate. President Trump said on his first day in Office his Chief General came to him and told him that the U.S. military was critically short of ammunition.

Making the U.S. military play nice with climate change is much less dangerous than running them out of ammunition.

The U.S. military will work around the climate change kooks in the White House. Like they did last time.

griff
January 28, 2021 1:12 am

It seems unlikely this involves military vehicles…

Note that for corporate fleets the ‘total cost of ownership’ is lower for EVs. This will save the US govt money.

I note also the very many US military bases which have saved money and increased their independence from local grids by installation of solar power and renewable heating and storage.

starzmom
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 5:59 am

Since we are also told that the climate crisis represents a national security threat, I cannot think of a reason military vehicles should be exempt, other than EVs and their supply sources are unreliable.
But if it is that much of a threat, who cares? /sarc

Tom Abbott
Reply to  starzmom
January 28, 2021 11:32 am

“But if it is that much of a threat, who cares?”

John Kerry said today that even if the U.S. reduced CO2 to zero (which is, of course, so impossible in any reasonable timeframe that sane people would not attempt it) that it would not help the world situation because others, such as China and India would still be “polluting”.

So what is the point of the U.S. reducing CO2 production if it makes no difference to the Big Picture?

Biden and Kerry should focus on reigning in China and India’s emissions before crippling the U.S. economy for no good reason.

starzmom
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2021 4:08 pm

I agree. Did you not see my /sarc label?

On the other hand, since I don’t think we have truly sane people running the show, I am not surprised if they take positions that are not sane, which they are doing.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  starzmom
January 29, 2021 7:24 am

I saw your /sarc. I was just adding to your comment, in support. Or, that was my intention.

I think we have some very delusional people running governments in most Western Democracies. A few of the former Soviet Block European nations seem to have competent leaders, but that’s about the size of it, especially now that Trump is gone and the Delusional Left is in charge in the United States.

mcswell
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 9:06 am

Where did you see Biden’s order? A link would help. The article I found (https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/biden-replace-entire-federal-fleet-electric-vehicles/story?id=75488441) talks only about automobiles. Most military bases (and ships when in home port, see my post above) have a fleet of cars, none of which ever drives far from “home”, and afaict that’s the only kind of military “vehicle” that would be covered.

This is pretty irrelevant, but just for fun: my father learned to drive during WWII when he had to check out a jeep from the pool on Adak to look at some kind of installation elsewhere on the island. The sarge in charge of the pool didn’t feel like assigning a driver to ferry this engineer around (too comfortable sitting in front of the stove, so the story went), so my father the engineer got a quick verbal lesson on driving. And an electric jeep would have worked just fine, had such a thing existed back then.

Mr.
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 12:06 pm

we sometimes forget that the first automobiles were battery powered.
Then something better was offered (ICE) and the parade moved on.

As that old saying goes –
those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them

mcswell
Reply to  Mr.
January 28, 2021 1:05 pm

Yeap, and maybe now something better than lead-acid battery powered cars and gas powered cars (and steam driven cars, much as I like steam) is being offered. So right, let’s not repeat history by objecting to these new-fangled gasoline-less carriages just because it’s new.

Mr.
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 3:28 pm

I’m kinda agreeing with you – the early autos were mostly fit for purpose, tooling around the avenues of New York City for an hour or so.
They did call them “town cars” after all.

But the toffs wanted to go to the country or beachside estate for the weekend, and uh-oh, can’t pull it off with this equipment.

So, EVs are mostly fit for purpose – tooling around the inner city.

But don’t even think about hitching up that 4,500 lb trailer to escape to the wilderness with the family for a couple of weeks.
You’ll need your trusty F250 for that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  mcswell
January 29, 2021 7:29 am

It’s not really the “carriages” that are being objected to, but rather all the things, difficult, expensive, polluting things, that go along with electric cars, especially if everyone is driving an electric car.

Electric cars = Good

Mandating everyone drive an electric car now = Disaster

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 9:40 am

“I didn’t see any exceptions in Biden’s order. If Biden had said “except for military vehicles, or in circumstances where EVs are impractical”, I would have been nicer about it…”:

I seem to recall seeing this posted at WUWT once before, but I will do it again:

Dear Enemy:

We were wondering if you could please hold off on starting this battle for a few more hours or so? We are still charging our battery-powered tanks and it takes a while.

BTW, would you happen to know if there are any electric charging stations for our tanks on the battlefield? Our tanks may need recharging during the battle, and we would appreciate any info you have on this. Thanks, the U.S. Army.

Idiocy beyond words.

Mr.
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 11:58 am

and mobile
Like diesel generators on trailers.

fred250
Reply to  griff
January 28, 2021 4:30 am

“increased their independence from local grids

.”

WRONG, with wind and solar you are ALWAYS dependent on the local grid.

Absolutely RELIANCE on it being there when needed..

You can’t have “increased” independence.

You either are independent…..

or YOU ARE NOT

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
January 28, 2021 5:24 am

What makes you think the total cost of ownership is lower for EV’s in fleets?

  1. As the price of electricity goes up from closing fossil fuel plants the cost of operating the EV’s goes up.
  2. Once the fleet has been in use for a decade the cost of maintenance and replacement will skyrocket, far exceeding the costs for diesel ICE vehicles.
  3. EV’s are heavier and are thus less usable in inclement weather than ICE vehicles. This significantly lessen productivity during inclement weather.
  4. EV’s lose significant efficiency in cold weather while ICE vehicles do not.

The only thing on military bases using solar power is ancillary equipment that is not mission critical. No military will depend on solar or wind to power heating in offices or even barracks. Same with lighting, maintenance shops, armories, etc. They depend on the grid backed up with on-site diesel generators.

You are doing nothing but spouting CAGW dogma. Check your facts first.

The biggest innovation by the military today is developing microgrids on their bases to cut maintenance costs and enhance reliability. These microgrids are typically powered with large diesel generators. Solar and wind are only for ancillary functions. As nearly as I can determine the entire military only has about 150MW to 200MW of solar and wind power across all of its US bases. This typically only results in less than 10% of power needs being solar or wind at any specific installation. It is highly unlikely that this will increase much in the future. Reliability is the keyword for the military and solar and wind are *not* reliable energy.

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 9:27 am

Sir, I think it’s you who are (mostly) spouting dogma.
1) May be true, depending on cost of electricity in coming decades. I know what you’ll say to that, that you have a perfect crystal ball etc.
2) Nonsense, you have no figures on that, and evidence so far is that electric vehicles cost *less* to maintain.
3) Even more nonsense. Yes, EVs are slightly heavier, but that *helps* on wet roads: “the lighter the vehicle the greater the tendency to hydroplane” (from https://www.markelinsurance.com/resources/medical-transportation/hydroplaining, which obviously has no bone to pick on EVs) Weight also helps in snow: “Does weight really give you more traction in snow? Spoiler alert: of course it does.” (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/reviews/does-weight-really-give-you-more-traction-in-snow/ar-BB1c0xhj?fbclid=IwAR08q0Fc0NuMj9pfjBbPvfZN16LncCG-M3Kd8J3wUuzsTzuJDheR0sa3ieo). So the exact *opposite* of what you say.
4) True (and I said “mostly” above because this point is true)

As for the use by military bases of solar energy for reliability, that’s a harder question to answer, but a quick web search returns a lot of hits about “resilience” or “security”, and operating for weeks or months off the grid using solar (plus batteries, I assume). This is one, although it’s probably biased: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/17/us-military-bases-using-solar-wind-battery-storage-for-energy-security/

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 10:09 am

mcswell,

  1. I *do* have a crystal ball. It’s named “macroeconomics”.
  2. I *do* have figures on that. go here: https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/tesla-warranty/ The battery warranty is only eight years. If Tesla was sure the battery would last longer than that they would have a longer warranty.
  3. Weight is a DEFICIT on ice, snow, or mud. Since EV’s use standard auto tires they will be less useful in inclement weather with any of these conditions – i.e. more than half of the US. Weight may help you get started on snow and ice, but what you start moving you have to also stop! Simple physics.Heavier vehicles ARE harder to stop – and stopping is the cause of most accidents on snow and ice, not starting.

Look at what those solar panels are being used for! Ancillary operations. A solar installation large enough to run a major base installation for weeks or months off-grid would be larger than the base itself! What you are talking about with “resilence” and “security” is solar panels being used for powering things like backpack radios and other comm equipment where silence during combat is an issue. With the total solar power at 200MW for *all* military bases solar is *not* very much – certainly not a significant contributor to resilence and security for the entire military establishment.

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 11:09 am

1) Hope you find that one-armed economist that President Truman was looking for.

2) How many gas-powered vehicles have 8 year warranties? Kia and Hyundai have 10 year powertrain warranties, but I don’t think most of the other mfgs do; I know for a fact that Toyota comes with a 35k mile warranty. Does that mean Toyota expects their cars to fail at 36k miles? At any rate, Tesla’s warranty is way better than Toyota’s.

If you want more info on the *actual* lifetime of Tesla batteries, I suggest a web search. You’ll find that “data shows less than 10% degradation in the energy density after over 160000 miles on Tesla’s battery packs” (https://www.vehiclesuggest.com/how-long-does-a-tesla-battery-last/, and many other websites).

3) No, weight is *not* a deficit in ice, snow, mud or water, quite the contrary. And contrary to what you say, heavier vehicles do NOT have to be harder to stop, since weight can be compensated by the brakes (e.g. the size of the shoes and drum, or calipers and disk) and on the tires. But in slippery conditions, Weight Is Your Friend, as the links I gave described.

As for running off-grid, power consumption will need to be kept to a minimum (reduced from full load), regardless of whether you’re running diesel generators or solar + battery. The steam-driven ship I was on in the Navy (many moons ago) had diesel generators, but they could power only a small fraction of the circuits our SSTGs powered when the steam plant was running.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 11:50 am
  1. It’s called the law of supply and demand. Take an macroeconomics course. The only one-handed economists around today are Demcrats/Marxists.
  2. So what? The comment that started this was griff saying EV’s would be cheaper to use because they would last longer! Apparently that’s just not the case!
  3. Judas Priest! Do you ever watch any of the mud races around the country? They don’t use heavy Cadillacs – they use lightweight vehicles like Jeep CJ’s! And how do brakes work when the wheel is stopped and you are skidding? Heavy vehicles simply don’t stop as well on ice and snow. You can only get so much friction from the tires. If you have enough brakes to lock up the wheels then bigger calipers or drums simply won’t help stop you. It’s not apparent that you drive much in ice and snow. Where do you live? Do you even own a car and drive it?

My natural gas Generac generator will supply my whole house for as long as I need it to. We aren’t talking about military ships. We are talking about my house and my neighbors houses! There is simply no way to do that with a solar/wind installation when the sun hasn’t been seen for three weeks or more!

Like most greenies all you seem to know is that the US needs to become a 2nd or 3rd world country with intermittent power – need to wash clothes after a week of the batteries running down? Too bad. Wash’em in the bathtub. Of course that’s not good in a rural residence with a septic tank – but the liberal elites don’t care about that, they think we are all stinky Walmart denizens and deplorables anyway! A little more stink won’t hurt, will it?

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 1:14 pm

You obviously missed the point about the one-handed economists; look it up.

The original point about EV automobiles lasting longer than gas-powered automobiles is probably true; they certainly seem to last well by mileage, too early to say about years. (Semi-trucks and their engines are built to a different standard–ever hear of cylinder liners?).

Grew up in Illinois, just west of Chicago. Plenty of driving in snow and ice. As for locking the wheels, we learned back then how not to do that (pumping the brakes, for one) and how to steer out of a skid (been there, done that). Heavy cars do indeed handle better in rain, snow and ice; been there too.

Generators vs. solar: I wasn’t aware we changed from talking military bases to talking about houses north of the Arctic Circle; I must have missed that turn.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 4:48 pm

on the other hand – economists try to have it both ways!

Mileage is *NOT* the determining factor on longevity, especially not for fleet operations. Warranty expiration plays a huge part in when you replace a vehicle.

For passenger vehicles, including trucks and vans, the initial allowable depreciation is about $18K. That falls to about $5K by the fifth year. It simply doesn’t pay to carry a vehicle much past the warranty period when the depreciation drops so low. You are better off selling it for salvage and buying new. Remember, depreciation is a tax deduction!

I don’t know why you don’t go out and learn some of this on your own. I shouldn’t have to be teaching you basic economics like this.

And, yes, I know all about cylinder liners. They’ve been around for farm tractors for a long, long time. I helped my father replace liners in a lot of H and M Farmall tractors back in the 60’s.

How many vehicles did you drive that didn’t have good enough brakes to lock the wheels on snow or ice? If none, then why did you say better brakes would help on EV’s?

I’ve been around for a long, long time driving on snow and ice. I *never* want to try and stop a 1960 Lincoln Continental (a *very* heavy car) if I can be driving a much lighter Ford Focus! You just keep on showing your ignorance when you claim otherwise!

Pay attention. Griff started this by talking about military bases. Keep up.

KAT
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 2:42 pm

Nonsense. Diesels are the primary power supply for most merchant ships – including those with large electrical loads such as passenger ships!

mcswell
Reply to  KAT
January 28, 2021 3:35 pm

Probably true, but I was talking about Navy ships (the context being military). That said, yes, you could build a backup power generator the size of a diesel in a merchant ship (plus the actual alternator); I’m just wondering how many military bases are powered by those.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 5:06 pm

According to Pew Charitable Trust a large base may have 200 or more standalone generators. This is why the military has been looking into creating microgrids on their bases using large generators, typically in an N+1 or N+2 format. The loss of one or two generators could be covered by the remaining generators.

Almost everything you’ve claimed on here is discussed fully all over the internet. Why don’t you do some of your own research instead of making outlandish claims and assertions?

KAT
Reply to  mcswell
January 29, 2021 6:06 am

Ask the Sappers!
All electrical power out in the field is supplied by fossil fuelled gensets. There are nil mobile wind turbines or solar panel arrays capable of effectively fulfilling this function in a modern army.

Last edited 7 months ago by KAT
MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 28, 2021 9:01 am

You can always count on griff to float what ever the lie du jour is.
Cost of ownership is only lower if you ignore things like taxes on gasoline, which the federal government doesn’t pay anyway, and battery replacement.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
January 28, 2021 9:38 am

Great! Not only does it cost those military bases more for electricity, it also denies local utilities a return on capital for the generation and transmission facilities they constructed to serve the bases. Classic ideological lose/lose. Typical government “salami” thinking: Do economically insane projects piece-by-piece such that the taxpayers don’t notice until it is too late. Thank you for this example of Marxist economics, Griff.

Wealthy Capitalist (Western) societies can afford this … until they can’t. Germany and California are on the forefront of the “until they can’t” socialist utopias’ march to serfdom.

Len Werner
January 28, 2021 1:18 am

First I see that ‘tribal lands’ are excluded from fossil fuel development–which means that we have truly arrived at the ‘some are more equal than others’ prediction.

Second–and darned if there are going to be those who weren’t born yet and won’t know what this means–can you imagine the hilarity of watching federal police chasing down, say–a Bronco on LA freeways? It will remind us of the Canadian winter police chase–both stuck in the snow with spinning tires, squad car about 10 feet behind the chasee.

Third–I’m going to laugh so hard when the reality hits that a windmill can’t build another windmill. There’s such a deliciously ironic contradiction to using the term ‘renewable’.

Fourth–I trust that this will also apply to Air Force One. It’s a federal vehicle.

Fifth–insider trading by those making the law?–that’s just so…socialist.

And here I thought that we in Canada had the stupidest leader in the western world, in both image and action. H/T to America, I think you got us beat. That cabal of masked bandits standing around behind Biden in that executive order signing ceremony that someone posted the link to a few days ago–strangest, most surreal scene I’ve watched in government in my lifetime. ‘Who WAS that masked man?’

starzmom
Reply to  Len Werner
January 28, 2021 6:02 am

OK, I can’t get the Canadian police chase out of mind’s eye. I assume when they call for backup it just gets funnier.

commieBob
January 28, 2021 1:42 am

I keep hoping that the obvious flaws in renewable energy will become impossible to ignore as the examples of failures become bigger and more numerous. Apparently I’m wrong.

If people are allowed to keep their gas vehicles, I have a vision of rural America becoming like Cuba.

I wonder how the people of New Mexico would have voted if they had half a clue.

We need more inauthentic Republicans like Trump dammit.

Derg
January 28, 2021 1:58 am

“ The order directs federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies as consistent with applicable law”

Eric are you aware of these subsidies?

Waza
Reply to  Derg
January 28, 2021 5:22 am

Direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry do exist, but they are minimal.
The greentards the world over claim that tax reduction are subsidies. This is bs.

Example. In Australia there is 42.3 cents per litre fuel excise ( actually 46.5 cents as it has gst on top). This is about $550 a year for every motorist.
The Government originally sold it as a levy for building roads.
Thus the mining, construction and agricultural sector argued they shouldn’t have to pay if they didn’t drive on the road.
The greentards claim not paying a levy/tax is a subsidy.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Derg
January 28, 2021 10:01 am

This falls under the humor category of “one endangered species eating another.” Native Americans are an identifiable political group, as are farmers, unions, universities, etc. Our voluminous tax code is a steaming pile of special interest carveouts. Good luck amending that anytime soon to accommodate Biden’s grandiose schemes. The socialists have made Federal regulations so complex and impenetrable that they can’t implement their bright, do-good programs. Note that a Texas Federal judge has blocked a Biden Executive Order nationwide.

Flight Level
January 28, 2021 2:19 am

Meanwhile, the AirForce 1 operational cell must have scheduled quite an urgent meeting…

KAT
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 4:21 am

Take off weight = landing weight
or
Dump batteries by parachute before touchdown!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  KAT
January 28, 2021 5:30 am

One of the advantages of a fossil fueled airplane – it gets lighter as the fuel is burned.

BTW, can you imagine a carrier-based fighter running on batteries in a dogfight with a Russian MIG? What’s the military going to use for fuel when we are no longer using fossil fuel and all the refineries are shut down?

starzmom
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 6:54 am

How does mid-air refueling work with an electric aircraft?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  starzmom
January 28, 2021 7:28 am

poorly!

Len Werner
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 8:13 am

Why? An extension cord with a drogue on the end of it should work as well as a hose.

Dmacleo
Reply to  starzmom
January 28, 2021 8:11 am

once. all fuel from both are combined spectacularly.

DonM
Reply to  starzmom
January 28, 2021 11:17 am

find a thunderstorm … lots of free electricity up there … the development of a collection system is just around the corner.

Flight Level
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 11:41 am

Well, nothing special if “Honest” Joe soloes it over sea.

4 Eyes
January 28, 2021 2:49 am

OMG! God help the US of A, it’ll need help. I hope you left out the bit that says when this order does not apply. Or is that it? Sane Democrats must be getting nervous already, but they won’t say anything ‘cos they have missed their chance. Just plain nuts. I’m glad I am in Oz.

leitmotif
January 28, 2021 3:29 am

Luckily, their golf buggies are already electric.

MarkW
Reply to  leitmotif
January 28, 2021 9:07 am

For some reason, when I first read that, I saw “golf buddies”.

Coeur de Lion
January 28, 2021 4:17 am

Just been sent a video of a Chinese Navy ‘shopwindow’. I’m a little out of date but everything was real cutting edge stuff. Lots of vertical launch missiles, carrier deck operations, huge ballistic missile submarine, attack ditto, very tweaky radar antennae , Phalanx type anti missile gun, all the lads v smart, ultra-disciplined saluting, all escorts ultramodern anti reflective shapes. None driven by electricity that I could see.
When China invades Taiwan, what should we do?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 28, 2021 4:49 am

Since Taiwan has had 71 years to prepare for such an invasion- I’d think the invasion would be near impossible.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 28, 2021 6:07 am

The ChiComs will not play nice if it comes down to cases, and screw international opinion. Only the US would have been willing to make it a bad day for any invasion, but that’s done now. It will be all “tut, tut” and crocodile tears from the EU and the Demonrats. Mass has a quality all its own, and they will throw enough bodies into an invasion that the Taiwanese will eventually run out of bullets.

starzmom
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
January 28, 2021 6:17 am

They won’t land on Taiwan until it runs out of Taiwanese bodies.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 28, 2021 7:27 am

Don’t be naive. China will *destroy* Taiwan before it lets it become independent. And Taiwan simply doesn’t have any way to stop that from happening.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 7:38 am

Of course Taiwan can’t stop a full scale invasion. But look how difficult it was for America to invade islands held by the Japanese in WWII- when they were dug in. I should think Taiwan by now should have a vast number of anti aircraft and anti ship missles- to make such an invasion very difficult and expensive. Making it expensive is a good way to discourage it. And of course Taiwan won’t declare independance- it’ll continue with its existing policy of pretending to be part of “one China” while actually being independent. It was also be expensive to China in terms of world affairs. So, China will continue with the game too. Ergo, no invasion, Mr. Naive only looking at the superficial facts.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 28, 2021 10:07 am

I should think Taiwan by now should have a vast number of anti aircraft and anti ship missles- to make such an invasion very difficult and expensive.”

Thinking it doesn’t make it so.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 28, 2021 10:30 am
  1. When China has supplanted the US as the only remaining superpower why would they care about what the rest of the world thinks?
  2. Where do you think Taiwan have all these anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles sited?
  3. What makes you think China cares about the cost in expending cannon-fodder? They have a lot of it to expend!
  4. China was afraid of Trump. That held them in check. Do you *really* think they are afraid of Biden? They’ve already bought his inaction! The Dems have whined for five years that Russia must have something on Trump – even though Trump was harder on Russia than Clinton, Bush, and Obama combined. Do you think China has nothing to use to blackmail Biden?
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 29, 2021 7:48 am

I don’t think the Chicoms care *now* about what the rest of the world thinks. I think they believe their own propaganda, that they are the rising power in the world and they are acting like it. They may be assuming too much. Humans have a bad habit of doing that.

The Chicoms obviously care very little for human life. How many millions have they killed with their deliberate release of the Wuhan virus on the world. That’s about as cold-blooded as you can get.

I will note that the Chicoms attacked the Vietnamese back in the 1980’s, in an effort to steal some of Vietnam’s land along their mutual border, and the Vietnamese military “bloodied the Chinese military’s nose” as it was put at the time. And the Chinese backed off. Of course, the Chicoms have new leadership now, and a new arrogance (or maybe an old arrogance resurfacing) so things are different.

Yes, the Chicoms were afraid of Trump and they are not afraid of Biden. I can’t imagine that they don’t have compromising information on Biden. That’s what they are paying his son, Hunter for. So *any* decision on China made by Biden has to be suspect and questioned. He may not have freedom of action.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 28, 2021 11:42 am

An invasion of Taiwan would be very costly to the Chinese military. So many things could go wrong on all sides.

The Status Quo is best. There is no need for an attack on Taiwan. Only a mentally deranged leader would initiate such an attack now.

Xi threatens attacks. He should leave it at that.

Richard Page
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 28, 2021 8:08 am

I don’t think China needs to invade Taiwan. As soon as China proves that they are the dominant power in the Asia Pacific region it will have de facto control – it’s a little like guerrilla warfare at sea. The only thing preventing that atm is US + allied ships – if things go according to the Biden plan it won’t be long before China has control of the region without having to work for it.

Ben Vorlich
January 28, 2021 4:31 am

From UK Daily Mail
Joe Biden freezes billions of dollars of arms sales to the Middle East including F-35s to the UAE and smart bombs for Saudi Arabia

  • State Department says deal for 50 F-35s for the United Arab Emirates is frozen while it is reviewed along with munitions deal for Saudi Arabia
  • Trump administration rushed through last-minute deals at end of his presidency
  • F-35s were part of side deal when UAE recognized Israel as part of the Abraham Accords, giving its military world’s most advanced fighter/bombers
  • New Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he wanted ‘full understanding’ of commitments which led to deals 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9194497/Biden-administration-temporarily-holds-U-S-weapons-exports-official.html

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 28, 2021 5:33 am

And here I thought Biden said he would re-establish good foreign relations that Trump ruined. Just wait, Biden is going to get us re-involved in requiring a military presence in the ME>

Lie after lie after lie. And they called Trump a liar.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 11:47 am

This is part of Obama’s foreign policy of favoring the Mad Mullahs of Iran. Those F-35’s were aimed at the Mad Mullahs.

cedarhill
January 28, 2021 4:34 am

Simple solution: Install nuclear generators in all vehicles…fission even. Run a contest. Use thorium. Use wireless recharging. Use anti-gravity to reduce fiction.
Just imagine all the Universities working 24/7 on this along with using all the fired pipeline workers as construction energy PhD candidates.
The R&D alone will require trillions and trillions.
Perfect.

Tom in Florida
January 28, 2021 4:57 am

The New World Anthem

Sara
January 28, 2021 4:58 am

Aviation, too, maybe? Well, then, why not just go back to using gliders like the Army did during WWII? Got a lot done with a very, very low fuel cost for the tow to get the gliders airborne.

mcswell
Reply to  Sara
January 28, 2021 9:29 am

No, not aviation.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 10:15 am

When the refineries close for lack of demand where is aviation going to get its fuel? The large refineries can’t stay profitable on only airlines demand.

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 11:13 am

Refineries will be around for a long time; some will close down if the US transitions more over to non-petroleum based fuels (although the USG automobile fleet will put only a tiny dent in that consumption). Given that scenario, where some refineries will remain open, there is no reason they shouldn’t remain profitable. Not to mention that there are other petroleum products produced by refineries besides gasoline. (BTW, jets run on kerosene, not gasoline, although piston planes do use high-grade gasoline.)

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 12:30 pm

What makes you think *any* of them will be around for a long time? They have to make a profit on an enormous capital investment! Their biggest demand is for gasoline and heating fuel. Take away most of their demand and they will all go out of business. And that is what Ol’ Joe is saying he will cause to happen by 2035.

You can’t just blow up 2/3rds of a refinery in order to cut capital investment, they don’t work that way!

As I’ve already pointed out and you have apparently ignored, existing refineries simply won’t be able to live on making jet fuel for the airlines.

You have some really simplistic ideas of how economics work. You can’t just throw away capital investment without serious repercussions. Throw away enough to impact the capital associated with each stock share and pretty soon your stock will be worth nothing, your debt will be called, and you’ll wind up in bankruptcy.

It’s not even obvious that you know how plastics (ethylene and propylene) are made. These are created in high temperature furnaces. Do you think those high temp furnaces run off electricity? If Biden kills off fossil fuel production then where is the heating fuel for the cracking furnaces going to come from?

Our whole economy is directly tied to fossil fuel in one way or another. Kill fossil fuels by 2035 and you’ve affected the economy from the top to the bottom. Want plastic pipe to plumb an addition to your house? Kill fossil fuels and you’ll have to go back to expensive copper pipe! Want a light weight replacement quarter panel for your hot rod? Sorry, you’ll have to go back to using expensive steel panels. You want something other than a cotton shirt? Too bad, learn to live with it.

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 1:33 pm

Blowing up 2/3 of a refinery…why on earth do you bring that up? There are 135 petroleum refineries in the US today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refining_in_the_United_States), which clearly means that we could reduce production to in the neighborhood of 1/135 of current production without needing to have partial refineries. (Those refineries aren’t all the same size, so there’s plenty of room in that number for…refinement, pardon the pun. And no, I don’t think 1/135 is the right number, I’m just saying that some fraction of current production is quite possible, without subdividing any existing refineries.)

No, I did not respond to your claim that existing refineries couldn’t “live” by just making jet fuel. But since you insist: 1) No, not all 135 refineries would survive on making jet fuel. But as I explained in the paragraph above, there’s no reason they *should* all survive. 2) There are plenty of petroleum products other than jet fuel which the remaining refineries could produce for a profit, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery#Major_products.

Finally, re your question about “If Biden kills off fossil fuel production”: I said nothing about killing off fossil fuels. Biden may have, I’m not sure, but that’s a different question. I have only been talking about gasoline vs. electric cars, and really only about the Federal fleet of cars. (Well, I responded to a couple other posts here…) I agree that there are other uses for petroleum, besides making gasoline, and that it would be difficult to come up with alternatives for those; so petroleum and (some) refineries are likely to be around for a long time. So please stop putting words in my mouth.

BTW, re copper pipe: I’ve been looking at real estate in another state, and often they’ll refer to having replaced the “poly” (I assume they mean PVC) pipe with something else–presumably because of problems (leaks?) with the poly. Indeed, I had to replace a leaking PVC fitting in my house awhile back. Maybe we really should go back to Cu. But don’t quote me…

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 5:57 pm

Blowing up 2/3 of a refinery…why on earth do you bring that up? There are 135 petroleum refineries in the US today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refining_in_the_United_States), which clearly means that we could reduce production to in the neighborhood of 1/135 of current production without needing to have partial refineries.”

Do you EVER stop to think about what you are saying? We *already* suffer shortages when just a couple of those 135 refineries have to be shutdown for things like hurricanes, fires, etc!

In addition, many of those refineries put out different fuel mixes for different states and different seasons. Many refineries put out 10 to 15 different fuel blends at any one time and need up to 20 different hydrocarbon feed stocks to generate those blends. One or two refineries couldn’t do that!

Any refinery that losses 80% of their market, which is not unreasonable based on Biden’s policies, *will* go under. No refinery will be able to remain in operation based on a depleted demand based on airline fuel and a much smaller plastics demand.

You can dream otherwise all you want, that’s your prerogative, but dreams not based in reality are not survival strategies.

1) No, not all 135 refineries would survive on making jet fuel. But as I explained in the paragraph above, there’s no reason they *should* all survive.”

So you would bet airline survival on a few refineries being able to operate 24/7/365 without ever suffering from severe weather or accidental fires?

“2) There are plenty of petroleum products other than jet fuel which the remaining refineries could produce for a profit, see for example”

The remaining petroleum products represent 20% or less of the total market for refineries today. How will *any* refineries remain profitable on such a small output?

“I have only been talking about gasoline”

And as I told you the transportation market is over 66% of the refineries output today. If you take away 2/3rds of the market from refineries then a generous guess would be that 2/3rds of the 135 refineries you mention would go out of business leaving only 45 refineries in the US to handle our total needs. We suffer when only one or two refineries are down, that’s less than 2% of the refineries. You are now expecting 5% of the refineries being down to not cause any major disruptions in the operation of the US economy. If you can’t see that is an unreasonable expectation then you simply aren’t living in reality

If you have leaking plastic plumbing it’s probably because someone used PVC instead of CPVC. It’s a common mistake but should never be made by a professional plumber. If it was done by a professional then they should be contacted and not-so-subtly asked to fix the problem they caused!

DonM
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 11:13 am

don’t bring economics into the discussion of issues that affect the entire economy. you will only confuse things.

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 11:21 am

BTW, back in the early 2000s, I drove through southern Philadelphia every weekday, where there are lots of refineries and storage tanks for petroleum products. They stank (in the literal sense), and I’m guessing they still do. The more such stinking refineries we can get rid of, the better breathing air will be for the people who live nearby.

I grew up in a Chicago suburb, and still remember driving through Gary Indiana in the hay day of steel mills: they sky was dark from the smoke, and we held our noses (ok, figuratively). I drove back through there after (most?) steel mills shut down, and it was a much more pleasant place. Air pollution laws are much more strict today, but fossil fuels still produce byproducts (I am *not* talking about CO2) which I would be glad to reduce still further.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 12:44 pm

Typical Democrat. Rather see jobs off-shored than work to make domestic production work better! As long as the pollution is in China then its not your problem, right?

mcswell
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 1:40 pm

Off-shoring jobs: Now *you* are the one sounding like a Democrat. Every time I hear some new project (like a new tollway, a new maglev, wind farms, or solar energy), it’s accompanied by the number of jobs it will supposedly create. I don’t trust those numbers further than I can throw them, nor do I trust the assertion that closing down refineries would automagically reduce some number of jobs. For all you or I know, there will be a whole new industry created from recycling lithium batteries and rare earth metals from EVs, and that will create more jobs than are lost from closed refineries. But I won’t try to predict that, nor will I trust any one’s numbers of how many jobs were created/ lost from this, even 14 years from now.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  mcswell
January 28, 2021 6:16 pm

You are using the Democrats ploy – betting on the come and playing it up as a surety. Closing down refineries *will* kill existing jobs, not phantom jobs. Those other jobs are phantom jobs right now.

Most recycling of lithium batteries today is done through smelting in which the lithium is mostly lost. The nickel and cobalt are the best recovered materials for making a profit. Smelters aren’t large employers. How many highly trained people do you need to feed shredded batteries into a hopper. Lot’s different from the trained personnel running refineries.

Those smelters also need high temperatures from fossil fuels. Funny how so much of the “unreliable” power conversion is going to require *more* fossil fuel. If Biden kills fossil fuel by 2035 then what’s going to be used for all this high temperature stuff?

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 28, 2021 5:59 am

The Ruskies, Chinese and North Koreans will be incommunicado until further notice when they finally have recovered from rolling with laughter.

Ronald Stein
January 28, 2021 6:17 am

Zero and low emission vehicles are generally from the hybrid and electric car owners which are a scholarly bunch; over 70 percent of respondents have a four-year college or post-graduate degree, i.e., those that can afford an EV. This likely explains why the average household income of EV purchasers is upwards of $200,000. If you are not in that higher educated echelon and the high-income range of society, there may not be an appetite for an EV.

The government fits right in as they do not need any subsidies to entice them to purchase, as have unlimited funds – taxes – from the American public to pay for their EV’s.

starzmom
January 28, 2021 6:22 am

I think the DC and surrounding area should be the first ones to switch to all electric everything. Capitol police cars, presidential motorcades, Marine One and Air Force One, all other military vehicles. That is a good start and we can see how well it works out pretty quickly.

January 28, 2021 6:31 am

I assume that charging station is powered by batteries? I mean, we wouldn’t want no petroleum products tarnish our green war machine, now, would we.
P.S. Charging station batteries are actually very cruel as it requires the exploitation of two thousand unicorns tied in tandem to collect enough unicorn farts for every kiloWattHour.
P.S. Nightmares fart more, but purifying their farts is expensive leaves stains on the sheets.

ScienceABC123
January 28, 2021 7:04 am

Gasoline is still going to be produced, it’s a byproduct of cracking crude oil. Originally it was just “burned-off” as unwanted/unusable. It was the invention of the automobile that found a use for this “byproduct.”

Last edited 7 months ago by ScienceABC123
Andrew Harrington
January 28, 2021 7:20 am

Federal agencies buying electric vehicles to support create good-paying, union jobs… in Japan.

Gordon A. Dressler
January 28, 2021 7:29 am

Using the EVs that are newly-acquired by the Federal government is less than half the sad, sad story above.

The Federal government under the Biden administration is spending money like it grows on trees . . . a couple of trillion here for COVID-19 relief, several trillion there to fight climate change, five or so trillion over yon to insure social and economic injustice, etc., etc., etc.

According to GSA (see https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/vehicle-management-policy/federal-fleet-report ) the Federal non-military fleet of automobiles and trucks as of June 2020—almost all powered by gasoline, diesel or propane/natural gas—consisted of 471,600 vehicles with 48% of these being used by the US Postal Service.

The total cost for this non-military fleet of vehicles is given as $3.31 billion, with 56% of that attributed to the USPS segment of vehicles.

So, all these vehicles are going to be replaced over an unknown number of years by new EVs at what cost to the US taxpayers???

And let’s not forget the additional cost of buildup of the charging stations that will be required within/nearby the grounds where all these vehicles will be distributed and parked across the nation.

And let’s not forget the additional cost of the electricity to charge all these Government-owned vehicles.

And let’s not forget the additional cost of modifying the US grid infrastructure to support charging the half-million or so of these new EVs.

And let’s not discount that the Federal government is likely to by into the meme that most of these new EVs should have the deluxe package that includes fully-autonomous driving capability (the “safety” argument, dontcha know!) . . . what’s the cost-upper for that per vehicle?

And let’s not forget that the stated EV range on a full charge will far less in cold climates (with or without the use of a heater for the occupant(s)) and far less in hot climates (assuming the use of an air conditioner for cooling the occupant(s)).

And so on,and so on, and so on . . .

And all this from the newly-minted President that looked Americans straight in the eye, via the TV news coverage, and stated verbatim: ““I give you my word, I will always level with you.”

Sadly, just done with an individual’s stroke of the pen . . . Congress freely yielding up its power and responsibilities to Presidential executive orders.

Welcome to the new America.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 28, 2021 9:16 am

Range decreases when batteries get hot, as well as when they get cold.

George Daddis
January 28, 2021 7:46 am

I understand that either Joe, his advisors, or the PR people were extraordinarily negligent in clarifying whether Joe included “fighting” military vehicles in his EO.

However, this discussion would have been much more informative if we assumed they will quickly come to their senses and we then discussed the impact of the substance of the order:

  • all US manufactured EVs for non military uses and including USPS
  • removal of fossil fuel subsidies (what subsidies? Does Joe believe depreciation allowances are subsidies and does he plan to outlaw them?)
  • Pelosi’s questionable “insider trading” in a major EV manufacturing company

It is great to make fun of Joe’s bloopers, but this one is really serious and deserves serious discussion. (Now get off my lawn!)

Dmacleo
January 28, 2021 8:01 am

remember when tons of money was spent overseas by HRC state dept for eco vehicles while actual embassy/consulate/outpost security was left to rot?

this guy remembers.

James Beaver
January 28, 2021 8:19 am

China will really appreciate the shutdown of all USN and USAF facilities due to a lack of carbon free power generating capacity.

ColMosby
January 28, 2021 8:36 am

Why Biden thinks eliminating native oil and gas will have any effect on
fossil fuel use is a mystery. his country currently exports LNG to other countries
and oil is used for a lot of things other than making gasoline, so many products will see a cost increase in made in America. And nobody is going to throw way their gas powered car just because the oil for gasoline may have to come from abroad. Actually I doubt that any automaker will still be making gas powered cars after 2025, so the net effect of all this will be negative and have no effect on carbon emissions.

Dave Fair
January 28, 2021 8:54 am

When ideologues take over planning, you get Soviet-style 5 Year Plans. Everything is made of steel and everybody gets left-foot only shoes.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 28, 2021 9:52 am

And you can have any color of car you want as long as it is black.

Kevin R.
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 12:28 pm

After waiting on the list for ten years.

Clyde Spencer
January 28, 2021 9:27 am

As did Obama, Biden is circumventing the proper responsibilities of Congress. He is acting like a dictator. Interestingly, that is exactly what Democrats have accused Trump of doing.

One of the problems with Executive Orders is that they are rescinded as easily as they are declared. There is none of the back-and-forth debate that goes on in Congress, which acts to dampen the oscillations of emotion by allowing legislators to get input from their constituents and time to think about how to vote.

Democrats seem incapable of doing any long-range thinking, which is why Pelosi would say “He’s not MY president,” and Democrats would seriously consider eliminating Senate filibusters and packing the Supreme Court. Democrats are actually the party of “deplorables!”

Last edited 7 months ago by Clyde Spencer
markl
January 28, 2021 9:32 am

Blah, blah, blah. Typical Climate Zealot folderol without substance. Goals without viable attainment plans nor realistic outcomes and no attention given to consequences.

Doonman
January 28, 2021 10:04 am

This will be fun to watch when Biden’s motorcade has to stop to recharge when he has to use the bathroom.

TEWS_Pilot
January 28, 2021 11:14 am

This gives a whole new meaning to the term “Electronic Warfare.”…maybe we can convince future enemies to limit war to just video game competition….winner takes all.

Clyde Spencer
January 28, 2021 11:15 am
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 28, 2021 12:40 pm

Don’t get too overjoyed with this. The article didn’t even begin to address the complexity of developing a logistics chain capable of supporting such a vast fleet. If production sucks up all the available motors then where will you go to get a replacement?

When will NAPA, Autozone, etc get supplied with replacement parts in the logistics chain? Till you can go to an auto supply store to get replacement parts in the same manner as you get an oxygen sensor, this is going to be a pipedream for most potential owners – including the government.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 28, 2021 1:57 pm

Tim
I didn’t give them accolades for recognizing the obvious. I was actually just surprised that they didn’t come out with the usual praise for a program that is based on a very shallow understanding of the complexities involved in making it happen.

I addressed some of the other oversights by the Biden administration in another comment in a recent article by Willis.

I’m reminded of Democrats dancing the macarena in celebration of Bill Clinton’s election. The dance includes a lot of arm and hand motion. This tradition is carried out today in the Biden administration with a lot of hand waving.

Kevin R.
January 28, 2021 11:17 am

Eliminate petroleum or make it ridiculously expensive and exactly what do you make asphalt from to drive electric vehicles on?

I picture fleets of electric vehicles with broken down roads that destroy them.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Kevin R.
January 28, 2021 12:42 pm

There are already lots of places in this country that are in this kind of shape. State and local govt’s, especially in Democrat-run states, are more interested in wealth redistribution than in fixing their streets and roads!

Philo
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 30, 2021 7:03 pm

In PA the legislature is more interested in wealth accumulation(personal you see). As a result the PA Turnpike is religiously maintained and constantly improved at high cost and not just by tolls. The legislature chips in multi-millions every couple of years so if they get kicked out of office or need to retire for some reason they are assured of a lucrative, do-little position, a pension, and retirement health benefits.

Steve Z
January 28, 2021 12:33 pm

When wildfires break out during the summer and fall in arid regions, planes able to pull water from lakes and drop it on fires are frequently used to help put out the fires. If such a fire breaks out on government land, will they have to use an electric plane (which hasn’t been invented yet)?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Z
January 28, 2021 2:01 pm

Twisted rubber bands will be acceptable, if made in the USA.

Seriously, such fire bombers are usually old planes that have been retired from commercial transport business. What will firefighters rely on if a rapid transition is made to everything electric?

Rud Istvan
January 28, 2021 2:19 pm

As said on another thread, the obvious idiocy of these Biden orders, plus the over-reach by Pelosi and Schumer, will make the Dems easy targets in 2022. Taking back the House will be easy. The Senate will be more difficult just given the composition of who is up for re-election. But Palin taking out Murkowski in Alaska primary is still an improvement, as would be MAGA replacements for Toomey (Pa) and Portman (Ohio).

TonyG
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 28, 2021 5:34 pm
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 29, 2021 8:45 am

Yes, Murkowski has to go. I’ll donate to her Republican opponent.

Nicholas McGinley
January 28, 2021 4:56 pm

Imagine being in an electric car when a blizzard hits.
Imagine freezing to death on a highway.
But I repeat myself…

RoHa
January 28, 2021 6:39 pm

That picture is just silly. The obvious thing to do is put a solar panel on the top of the tank, so that it makes its own electricity.
Need to put some heavy armour over the panel, though.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  RoHa
January 28, 2021 6:47 pm

ROFL!!!!

mikebartnz
January 28, 2021 10:01 pm

What I have not seen anyone mention so far is that the USA only gets 14% of its power from renewables so the whole exercise is totally pointless and when you take all the losses in transmission ETC.an ICE vehicle is far more efficient. At least in New Zealnd we get 80% of our power from renewables and if the aluminium smelter down south closes we will be about a 100% renewable.
As for that immature prat mcswell I wish he would just go away as he is so ignorant of life he has added nothing to the conversation.

mikebartnz
Reply to  mikebartnz
January 28, 2021 10:21 pm

I have a friend who was quoted years ago NZ$22,000 to get his power polled in so got a windmill and solar. As initially it was only going to be a holiday home that made perfect sense but then it became permanent. The windmill is basically unused now and he has installed way more solar so that it is now actually liveable. He is so stupid he doesn’t realise the problems when solar is connected to the grid and thinks everyone should live like him but I noticed as he is out in the country when he bought another vehicle recently it was an ICE one.

Ross
January 29, 2021 9:26 am

I am waiting for the first solar powered aircraft carrier that will have long extension chords going to the electric supersonic aircraft.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ross
January 29, 2021 1:38 pm

I’m waiting to see the first battery-powered F35 involved in a dogfight with a Russian MIG!

Gregory
January 29, 2021 11:18 am

There are a lot of puff articles on electric vehicles, to the extent I felt like most of them lacked real world facts. I then looked at car max, auto trader, car fax etc to see how the value of electric vehicles held up. The most notable observation is number of miles driven at used sale date. Looked like the average was in the 25-30 thousand mile range with the high milage outlier being 65 thousand [about 3-5 %]. These were cars 2-8 years old. I did not see any cars for sale over 8 years of age.

Leads to a question. When comparing purchase costs of an electric vehicle to a suv/pick up should not the comparison be made 30 thousand miles EV, versus 150 thousand miles suv/pickup. Electric vehicle would then be about 5 times more expensive?

Leads to another question. What happens after 8 years? The battery warrantee expires. Does the car turn into a brick. A well maintained pickup easily makes it to 16 years of use. Electric vehicle twice as expensive on that basis.

Puff pieces exist in similar fashion for KW and gas usage.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gregory
January 29, 2021 1:39 pm

Run down to Autozone and ask them for a new battery for a Tesla!

Philo
Reply to  Gregory
January 30, 2021 6:57 pm

What happens at about 6 years is the vehicle(car) sale or trade-in value plummets, enough to pay for a new battery. The much twitted lower maintainence costs for an EV disappear when the battery loses more than ~50% capacity.