Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to LA Times, a “disturbing” number of used vehicles are exported to poor countries. To fix climate change, manufacture, sale and export of gas guzzlers should be stopped.
Editorial: To save the planet from climate change, gas guzzlers have to die
By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 1, 2021 3 AM PT
The numbers paint a daunting picture. In 2019, consumers worldwide bought 64 million new personal cars and 27 million new commercial motor vehicles, a paltry 2.1 million of which were electric-powered. Climate scientists tell us that we have less than a decade to make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions — including those from internal combustion engines — if we have any hope of staving off the worst effects of global warming.
Yet manufacturers are still making, and consumers are still buying, overwhelming numbers of vehicles that will, on average, continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere for a dozen years after they first leave the lot. That means new cars bought this year will still be on the road well into the 2030s — long after the point when we should have slashed emissions.
…
Such a switch will have its biggest impacts in the U.S. — particularly car-heavy California, where transportation accounts for 47% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, transportation is responsible for only 15% of overall emissions; the main culprit is energy production, including onsite burning of fossil fuels by industries, which accounts for nearly half. Such disparities in the sources of carbon emissions spotlight why an array of global policies are necessary. No single solution will get us to where we need to be.
…
Much more needs to be done, though, beginning with policies and programs for getting rid of the gas burners already on the road. A disturbingly high number of used vehicles wind up getting exported from the U.S., Europe and Japan to developing nations, where few regulations may govern safety and emissions. While those countries’ need for transportation is clear, it makes little sense to meet that demand with vehicles that will continue contributing to a global emissions problem, and that in many cases wouldn’t pass safety inspections in their exporting countries.
…
Read more: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-03-01/editorial-to-save-the-planet-from-climate-change-gas-guzzlers-have-to-die
People in poor countries purchase second hand vehicles because they can’t afford anything else. They certainly cannot afford electric vehicles.
Banning vehicle exports to poor countries would force them to build their own, likely using simple solutions like 1950s technology, whatever they could put together in their workshops. Just like all those old vehicles maintained well past normal end of life by people in Cuba. I doubt this would lead to a reduction in global emissions.
As for say California going all electric, it simply isn’t practical. In 2019 Black Friday there was a half mile queue for an EV recharging station in Kettleman City. Despite Kettleman City at the time having 40 charging stations, the station couldn’t maintain maximum supply to all the charging points.
Tesla’s fast chargers deliver up to a quarter of a megawatt, though this tails off very quickly if you want an 80% charge (45 minutes), because when recharging the battery gets hot, and a quarter megawatt of heat is not easy to dissipate. But think about what this means if you have 40 chargers operating simultaneously :-
0.25MW x 40 = 10 Megawatts of power.
That’s a lot of electricity – enough to power 5000 homes. Just for one charging station, operating at full capacity.
The California electric grid can barely service current requirements – so where will California find 10s of gigawatts of extra power, to recharge a 100% statewide EV fleet?
Compare this to a gasoline filling station, which is essentially just a big underground gasoline tank and a pump. Gasoline pumping stations deliver power to vehicles at an even faster rate, but since the power is conveniently stored in liquid form, its much easier and cheaper to handle and deliver.
My point is, without some major breakthroughs, all electric national vehicle fleets are just as much of a fantasy as the rest of the green package of climate “solutions”.
We have a lot of hybrids, electric cars on the road here in Southern California. After all, they are status symbols by which people can signal their virtue. Yet in the last few days, every public EV charging station that I have passed has been unused – not a single car being charged. I guess everyone has a charging point at their home or office.
I live just over 300 kilometres from Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and I often drive past a Tesla recharging station north of Newcastle, six recharging bays. I have never sighted more than two vehicles parked recharging and most often there are none.
The nearby liquid fuel service stations, several, are always busy with customers.
Recharging a “Plug in Hybrid” can easily be don’t at home overnight with 120V. You’re literally recharging a battery capable of powering the car for only 35 miles, 40 at best. Once Ca. eliminates Gasoline and Diesel sales within the state, all you will have is a very expensive and well appointed Golf Cart that can only travel in extremely limited spurts
You will also have a bunch of carve outs for ‘essentials’ … specific govt vehicles, utility vehicles, rural, federal use, etc.
They will include a path to receive the waiver, but it will be next to impossible to prove-up if you are not a govt, big corporations, type of entity.
Prior to outlawing gas/diesel for the masses, the govt (incl of ALL fire, police, emergency response, utility companies, port authorities, etc.) need to lead. Then I’ll follow.
See the
USAcounty in your ChevoletIt’s time to invest in horses and the buggy whip industry!
Indeed, we have a lot of hybris.
So, how bad is the “Smug” ?
It definitely runs Hot and Cold from the Governor’s office door
Numbers again Eric?
Why do you recalcitrants always bring in numbers to make your point?
Listen to your emotions to guide your position for once.
(yours truly
DR. Jill Biden
Educator)
… and caregiver/companion to the mentally challenged.
Larry the Cable Guy says…
Misspelled “thar”.
Jill Biden – Re-educator. There, fixed it for ya.
We choose truth over facts! Joe Biden
I remember reading that Whoopie Goldberg got very upset when a guest objected to Dr. Jill going by Dr. Jill.
Whoopie declared that Dr. Jill was such a good doctor, that she should be appointed Surgeon General.
Well if her sole duties as Surgeon General were only to tend to Joe’s nose hairs and his incontinence diapers, I wouldn’t have a problem with her appointment to that role.
In that same vein, maybe Whoopie should be appointed Secretary of State?
(I mean – Ji, Vlad and their comrades would sooo respect conducting unilateral negotiations with someone they got to call ‘Whoopie’. They would want to make sure she was comfortably seated – “Hey Whoopie, cushion?”)
Walter Reed has had Bigg Donnie as an inpatient more that Biden in his 8 yrs as VP
Incoherent ramblings from behind the autocue(“Because you talk about a certain power of the telephone and the calls where they would call and say, no, we don’t want to do that.”
…covfefe on twitter ( which he still defends as meaning something , oh dear), stumbles on the ramp
“so where will California find 10s of gigawatts of extra power, to recharge a 100% statewide EV fleet?”
Duh! We’re decommissioning our last evil nuclear power plant!
Oh wait…
There was a young green here on WUWT who was convinced that we could save enough electricity by going to LED lights, to power all of the electric vehicles, and then some.
So I guess the LA Times banned all advertising of new and used cars on its newspaper websites already.
As concrete production is another big producer of carbon, they are moving out of their buildings to work in ‘tents’… reusing their buildings for another business means one less new building built, thus saving the planet.
Not really. It produces CO2. Carbon is an entirely different item.
What?
Are you saying that “carbon pollution” is not Carbon Dioxide?
Surely the politicians can’t be wrong, they listen to “the science”?
I believe it is now called sciencieness, like truthiness, but with science.
The more sciencieness you use in your claims the more truthiness it contains.
It is also useful for heating in place of manure.
Yeah, I always wondered why they had a problem with diamonds and pencil lead.
Not to mention carbohydrates and soda pop.
Buildings are also huge users of energy. Will the LA Times commit here and now to no AC usage in their offices? (I doubt they need heating in LA) What about all that lighting and electronics usage of energy? That drives up emissions of CO2. They should be working in the dark, no AC, writing by hand. It’s all worth it for that 0.000001 degree temperature increase they theoretically will stop, right?
I believe that Petrochemicals are also utilized to make Ink…”Stop the Presses”
What energy source does the LA Times use to power their printing presses? Be very careful in just replying “grid electricity”.
A “guzzler”, is that a motor vehicle?
Sometimes a term for a heavy or fast drinker 🙂
It used to be a term for any car that got poor gas mileage.
I guess for modern greens, it now means any car that uses gasoline.
I guess it’s about time to explain to those unfamiliar with science to stop worrying about greenhouse gases. The water vapour is all natural and there is no evidence that CO2 is harmful. In fact, we’re just lucky that it’s increasing … because this planet has been sequestering that much needed gas far too quickly.
We really can’t afford electric cars.
We have 10 years supply of lithium and cobalt, and 100+ years of oil. I’ll wait.
Plus conversion of shale oil and coal to liquid fuel
… and nearly infinite Thorium.
I keep hearing”Thorium” are there any functioning commercial Thorium Generators in operation or is it more of a promise like Cold Fusion?
Bryan: A working prototype of a thorium reactor was implemented many years ago. So it is nothing like cold fusion, which does not exist, or even hot fusion, which has not yet reached the point where it produces more power than it takes.
Many people think that a working prototype means you are 90% of the way to full implementation. But those with experience in technical development realize that it is more like 10%.
I favor continued development of thorium reactors. But no one should consider it a sure thing, especially in the short run.
I favor the development of any power source that is reliable, diapatchable, and affordable … AND not dependent upon the Whims of Weather
Well, at least one version of a thorium MSR requires some lithium….if it all has not been wasted on the EV wasteland.
10 years, we’ve reached Peak Lithium”???
We cannot afford electric cars and …
* Paying premium retail prices compared to ICEV
* No resale trade-in value for our ICEV
* Demolishing liquid fuel stations and distribution centres
* Replacing liquid fuel service centres with recharging stations in equivalent numbers
Yes, and those too … not to mention the gross waste of time recharging them
I am a little surprised that there were 2.1M electric vehicles sold. Will have to find which ones and where they were sold.
Australia has not seen many yet but then they are not very practical for transport here. OK for sitting in the driveway to show you have money or you are a government big wig.
In Norway in 2020, the market hit a new record with 54.3% of all new cars sold in 2020 being EVs (not counting hybrids). Up from 42% in 2019.
Gasoline was $6.57/gal in Norway in 2020…
EV subsidies are YUGE in Norway…
All of this is enabled by Norway’s oil & gas revenue: “The oil and gas sector is Norway’s largest measured in terms of value added, government revenues, investments and export value”…
It really does amaze me how progressives will argue till they are blue in the face, that only subsidized purchase price counts as a subsidy.
Stop it David.
I’m almost starting to feel sorry for Griff.
(reminds me of that poor loser kid who always waved his hand up excitedly to get to answer the teacher’s question to the class, and when picked, he always got it wrong. And all the other kids just groaned.)
Wasn’t he elected Class Participant during Graduation?
Only EV’s that carry One or more Passengers??? Do they then not allow travel for EV’s carrying Zero Passengers???
If the price was competitive EV might be worth consideration for city and suburban drivers, but country Australians cannot waste time recharging so often when travelling.
Price is not competitive, recharging inconvenience adds to the negatives.
But an EV, get a road map and draw a circle with a radius of 125 miles or 200 kilometers around your house. Without additional charging, this is your world (Point of No Return)
No subsidies for EVs – let EV owners pay for their choice. However, a special tax on EVs for causing a need for more electricity generation may be necessary.
Also need a special EV tax similar to federal and state gasoline taxes used to pay for road maintenance.
EV charginging stations should be the first to get shut down whenever load shedding is required.
Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So reducing CO2 emissions will have not effect on climate. There may be many reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.
CO2 is NOT
a Problem
And human CO2 emissions are only a small part, that is if CO2 was a problem.
Furthermore, Lord Monckton identified the wrong mathematics in the IPCC models that causes the models to wrongly predict too high temperatures. Climate is cyclical and history revels that a cooling period is nigh. Keep cool….cooler temps ahead.
No offence, but reading these kind of posts are a bit annoying. You don’t have to tell me CO2 is not a problem. I know that already. So does everyone else on this site. Not trying to crap on you in particular, but I read too many comments here that are similar to this.
Virtue signalled
Job done
There you go.
“To save the planet from climate change, gas guzzlers have to die“
… lol! what a ridiculous thing to say.
It’s the guzzlers wot dun it.
Volvo today announced only EVs by 2030, with 50% EV and hybrid by 2025. Petrol engined vehicles are certainly on the way out…
I find it best not to respond to grief.. not directly, anyway. I just imagine the voice of Ralph Wiggum as I read his posts, although Ralph has ten times the credibility. One day, reality will bite grief. But will he be clever enough to notice?
When the politicians are threatening to outlaw your product, it only makes sense to concentrate on building something else.
Only a progressive would see this as a good thing.
you mean the brand owned by Geely Holding Group.
otherwise known as Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd the chinese automotive company?
interesting that you are a fan….
And I just bought a 5.7L dodge RAM just for the fun of it.
And I am going to buy a Tesla 3 just for the fun of it. And I bet I have more than you…
When a country is poor, the kind of car you get is the East German Trabant.
Which were massively toxic, unlike modern cars that clean pollutants from dirty city air.
Or the Reliant Robin.
0-Upside-down in 8.3 seconds!
Auto
Don’t know if this will work:
Top Gear and the Reliant Robin
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQh56geU0X8&w=560&h=315%5D
First:
Quote“Climate scientists tell us that we have less than a dec….”
Scientists have No Business to TELL us anything.
They may do research and present the results’ End of.
They are One Million Miles above their station when they do any ‘telling’
Second:
Any comment on the sheer waste of this…
Quote from BBC
“replace 82,000 electric-vehicle batteries over fire risk”
Brings a whole new level of excitement to Camp Mode in your Tesla eh not?
Third:
… and the fun bit, watch Boris’ head explode at this
Quote from the BBC:”” budget electric vehicle (EV) selling in China for $4,500 (£3,200) is now outselling Tesla’s more upmarket cars.””
Just at a very very rough guess, the tax UK car buyers pay to get an ordinary motor on the UK roads is, Just. The. UK. Tax. remember..
…. twice what that little motor costs in its entirety
Followed by £750 pa fuel tax, £150 pa Road Tax and depending your age, sky’s-the-limit Insurance Tax
Then 20% Value Added Tax on all its servicing and consumables.
Because with that little car, you’d do exactly as the ordinary people of China do.
viz, When the ashtray gets full, tyres wear out or battery goes flat, they scrap it and buy a new one. That is what they actually do.
Its turns the whole idea of ‘Electric Vehicles Good’ completely upside down
Something’s gotta give
Hopefully it will be Boris and Biden doing the giving = their Notices to Quit
Oh btw, thanks for the lockdowns….
Quote: click
“”UK cruise ships have been scrapped on an Indian beach despite assurances they would continue to be operated“”
Sorry to tell you this Boris et al, the Indians and Chinese are making total buffoons of you all.
some of us guessed as much
Princess Nutty knew from the first time she ever met you.
Why not have solar cells on the roof, or even better an aerial to catch free electrons raining down from space, just move LA further north
?
“1,000km-wide swirling mass of plasma several hundred kilometres above the North Pole, raining electrons instead of water,”
Professor Mike Lockwood, space scientist at the University of Reading, said: “Until now, it was uncertain that space plasma hurricanes even existed, so to prove this with such a striking observation is incredible”.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21459-y
Move along, just hype not much new here
Most of the EVs sold in Australia are fleet vehicles, the Australian (Turnbull) Government set aside A$300 million to subsidise fleet leasing firms to promote EV to fleet operators.
The average Australian won’t pay a substantial premium retail price for a small sedan EV costing around 70 per cent more than the equivalent in size ICEV, the price difference would pay for a lot of liquid fuel and maintenance services before a break even point is reached on an EV.
Mainly the Tesla Model 3 for the obvious zoom zoom but the MG ZSEV has hit the showrooms as the cheapest EV at $23990 AUD drive away-
Why China will soon dominate EV sales in Australia – EV Central
That’s an intro price and expected to resume another $4000AUD higher. Bearing in mind you can now buy a petrol MG3 1.5L runabout for under $17k drive away by comparison.
The big queue up is for the Toyota RAV4 hybrid (SUVs are half the market and growing) and along with other Toyota hybrids (cabbies buy Camry hybrids universally) the EV fan club like to use hybrid numbers to impress everyone the EV revolution is here. However deep down they despise them and want them gone too as a sacrilege to the cause-
Hybrid cars can use FOUR TIMES more fuel than makers claim (msn.com)
True EV disciples must eschew such impure thoughts.
Oops!… Mg ZSEV is $43990AUD intro
I don’t know about that 4 times claim. My CRV hybrid is supposed to get a combined 37 mpg and I get between 38 and 40 consistently on a combined rural to urban commute.
Elon has it sussed with his zoom zoom Teslas and I suspect that’s the appeal of the Model 3 for most buyers rather than saving the planet. Had the Model3 been available upon release with RH steering wheel then Oz likely wouldn’t be leading the resistance to the EV wet dream fantasy over the US-
Electric car sales 2020 | Car Research & Statistics — Budget Direct™
After all Renault quit the Oz market last year with their ZOE and that was the biggest EV seller in the EU during 2020 Covid year. $50k for a shopping trolley in Oz when Kia were selling a petrol Picanto auto for $15k? Dream on. Any fuel savings with electric would be swallowed up by extra interest repayment costs or the opportunity cost of home mortgage interest payments. Teslas are go for the rev heads and ZOEs are gone.
Oops, my EV floorpan collided with a speed bump, is that sizzling sound exothermic reaction?
Rolling a wombat under your ride will see it hauled off straight to the wreckers.
It is forgotten that EV were popular in the late 1800s, early 1900s and then Henry released the Ford Model T with internal combustion engine.
Same for windmills.
I would hardly say popular, it was just a novelty for the rich. Range was horrible, I’m sure.
That’s why they were called a “town car”?
EV’s did remain popular until the electric starter motor was developed.
The original competition for the lead-acid EVs were horse and buggy. The gasoline engine was too much competition for the EV and steam powered machines. There was speculation about “atomic” cars in the 1950s.
At the same time they should ban all forms of transportation that makes any use of fossil fuels. That includes electric cars charged up with electricity from fossil fueled burning power plants. Under those circumstances LA would quickly revert back to wilderness since all of the inhabitants would have to move away or starve to death. However, the whole effort would have no effect on global climate.
During the Valentine’s Day freeze of 2021, electric cars should not have been charging. I have not bothered to look for how many miles per megawatt Teslas use during subzero or if recharging is useful for home heat.
Do they know how many Permian Basin natural gas pumping stations were shutdown sending natural gas to power plants?
In 2019, the UK parliament the science and technology select committee stated that
“In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonization,”
And for once, as far as decarbonization goes, they are right because switching to EVs produces only marginal gains. And of course they bring with them other problems an inconveniences. The virtue signalling gains are strong, though.
Or they were just spelling out why restricting travel is being tested out with the current pandemic. A lot of the policies being bandied about or implemented appear to have the general effect of restricting travel, either by outright stoppage or by increasing the inconvenience of it.
Well there are about 15 million vehicles in California. If they were all electric, assume they must be charged once a week, take an hour to charge, and charge randomly at any time of the day, using 250kW chargers. Then the average power consumption of the chargers works out at 22GW! A typical coal/nuclear plant puts out ~1GW.
Then scale this up to the entire USA, and the notion of eliminating all fossil fuel transportation quickly is revealed as laughably impossible.
Is California also going require all the railroads to electrify by banning diesel-electric motive power? This too is inane, it will never happen.
they pretty much already do in the ports.forcing railways into fuel cell or blended ICE/battery locomotives.
It sure is and usually the Greenys would be all over such high demanding appliances on their precious unreliables grid like a rash as they continually neuter their consumer efficacy-
European Union bans on electrical appliances such as kettles, toasters and lawnmowers | UK | News | Express.co.uk
Not so their precious battery cars it seems.
Meanwhile Porsche fight the good fight to try and save the internal combustion engine from the wowsers-
Porsche’s synthetic fuel ‘as good as EV’ (goauto.com.au)
But this will really only be for motorsports and die-hard sports car guys/gals, not for mass consumption (if today’s sports car numbers can be considered mass consumption). Cost and availability of synfuel will be a limiting factor. Porsche SUVs are going pretty much all-in on EVs. However, Porsche does listen to their customers and if there’s a way, I believe they will try to keep ICE sports cars going, even if they are so (relatively) huge and weighty with legislated safety equipment that they are a different kind of sports car. EV sports cars just won’t be the same thing Hybrid 911s will be here soon….
IF these earnest people are so very, very concerned about carbon or CO2 or carbon something or other, then why are they NOT wearing rebreathers so as to stop contributing their own load of That Deadly Carbon Thingy to the atmosphere?
I really do think they should set the example. Anyone else up for that?
You mean like a plastic grocery bag? I think they outlawed those in CA. Probably saw your suggestion coming.
Electric vehicles are a non-solution to a non-existent problem; that’s why Progressives and politicians are so enamored with them! Nothing says I’m extra virtuous like a vehicle that pushes the fossil fuels powering them hundreds of miles away so that a sizable percentage of said power can be lost in transmission!
I don’t begrudge city folks doing whatever inane things they find momentarily fashionable as long as they don’t try to inflict their silly ideas on others. Like trying to put wolf packs in my backyard!
I’ve been to a city before, and I was able to survive AND escape! There were lots of pretty women and places to eat and drink, but who would really want to live there? Never forget that city is a four-letter word!
But then so is LOVE!
As I like to say: A solution that doesn’t work, for a problem that doesn’t exist.
I was trying to remember the way you phrased it, but couldn’t find the hook!
Now I’m definitely going to steal it; old songwriting habits die hard!
The hook brings you back…
Some of us remember Flower Power and welcome to tradeoffs Greenys because you have to get digging if you’re to ever get to your new Utopia-
To go electric, America needs more mines. Can it build them? (msn.com)
We need a WUWT primer on how to invest in rare earth mining and processing. Extraction operations are usually a rich man’s game, how can modest players get a taste.
With my gasoline engine, I can pull into a refueling station and 5 minutes later, including paying, I can drive another 350+ miles. With an electric vehicle, I can pull into a recharging stations and 30 minutes later I can drive another 250 to 300 miles.
Electric vehicles are not going to take off until it can be fully recharged in 5 minutes. Although rare, sometimes I drive close to 200 miles in one day for my work. When I have to drive that much, I do not have time to wait 25 extra minutes for a recharge. So, until electric solves that problem, it is a no-go for the majority.
There is not going to be a choice – electric way or no way.
Indeed, this is it. It is becoming clear that the plan is less about saving the world and more about imposing social change on the many to benefit the world views of a few. We must all suffer to appease a very few.
Charging that quickly, also reduces the expected life of your battery.
I can pull in fill up then go plow snow for 10-15 hours pull in (with come left in tank) and 15 minutes later leave.
To move fluid through a hydraulic resistance requires a pressure difference.
To move current through an electrical resistance requires a voltage difference.
To move heat through a thermal resistance requires a temperature difference.
Physics be physics.
The complex thermal resistance of the atmosphere (esp albedo) is responsible for the temperature difference between the surface and the ToA.
And that involves ALL of the molecules not just 0.04% of them.
“The complex thermal resistance of the atmosphere (esp albedo) is responsible for the temperature difference between the surface and the ToA.”
The presence of IR absorbing molecules increases that resistance significantly, thereby increasing the temperature difference between the surface and the ToA.
“And that involves ALL of the molecules not just 0.04% of them.”
Add 0.04% food coloring to water in a clear glass vessel. Observe what happens to the radiative transmission of certain wavelengths of light.
The reality is that EVs are far from Zero emissions. EV’s electricity to mechanical efficiency is about 59%–62% and currently about 61% of electricity comes from fossil fuels: natural gas (38%), coal (23%). Which have a thermodynamic efficiency of about ~40%.
To produce 1W of useful power it needs 1/0.62=1.613 W of electric power. Of these 61% come from fossil fuels: 0.984 W. To generate this power with a cycle of 40% efficiency you need 2.46 W of thermal energy.
Typical internal combustion engine (ICE) have efficiencies of about 17%-21%. So 1W of useful power is provided by 1/0.2=5 W of thermal energy.
So EV’s produce about half the emissions of a ICE car. This doesn’t count the extra emissions in mining rare earth materials for the batteries. And maintenance/replacement of the batteries.
And of course there is the problem to generate all the electric power that would be needed to power all the cars that are currently using ICE
And since CO2 emissions are mainly positive ¿Why would you want to pay twice as much for your car to reduce them to half?
Spam Risk Ahead!
Again, I point out that Leonardo Companies’ Dr Andrea Rossi promises a public presentation of the latest Ecat SKL THIS YEAR. I know, I know, you do not believe…
I do believe. Unfortunately, the construction of an electron stream (current) from breakdown of protons in a plasma triggered by vibrations at a picometric scale provides a high voltage, somewhat instable current not directly suitable for electric motors. Plus, certification for the automotive market is obviously more ticklish than for industrial use. Hence the first market will not be automotive.
I also believe a huge, technically competent major manufacturer is in bed with Rossi’s group, and will see that this amazing physics breakthrough doesn’t fall in the crack like earlier (thermal) Ecats.
Fire away.
Science is not about belief. It is about facts.
Let me know when Rossi is willing to set up a laboratory demo, and will permit full independent verification of his setup.
Ah, Science IS about beliefs. Facts go into the Process of Science testing beliefs. (Your professors called them hypotheses, and told you not to be dogmatic about them.)
I really hope that tinkering with the Casimir Force by twidling it with electromagnet frequencies with wave lengths at the atomic scale will at least let us understand more about zero point energy, vacuum energy, etc. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy ). Do you believe in vacuum energy? I don’t, I expect when they learn more they will call it something different.
A list of the great scams of physics. I’m not surprised.
Science is not about beliefs, it is about what you can prove.
You can believe anything you want, but if you can’t prove it, then it isn’t science.
Lot’s of people believe in Rossi. Unfortunately for them, and him, Rossi has had a great dearth of facts to back up his beliefs.
I doubt many people in poor countries have the electric infrastructure to charge electric vehicles, even if they could afford them.
Beyond that, a shade tree mechanic can keep an internal combustion car running. Once the battery goes dead, the only option is a new battery.
“Climate scientists tell us that we have less than a decade to make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions — including those from internal combustion engines — if we have any hope of staving off the worst effects of global warming.”
The word “scientists” above is used unadvisedly. The “scientists” in question are the ones predicting a future climate of destruction based on climate models that were never validated, have a 0% success rate in making predictions to date, and which base their predictions on assumptions that have no scientific foundation. Further, those same “scientists” appear to have no expertise in energy, economics, transportation, social development, scientific progress, or in the very poorly revealed environmental impact of all of their favoured “green” solutions. They are a herd of one-trick ponies who only know how to cry “wolf “at the top of their lungs every time a government grant is on offer.
Eric: A minor but important point.. You say: “when recharging the battery gets hot, and a quarter megawatt of heat is not easy to dissipate.”
All of the power that actually charges the battery is NOT dissipated as heat. Only the losses must be dissipated. These are just a few percent (it’s tough to get precise figures). If the losses are 5% of 250 killowatts, that 1.2 kW that must be dissipated, with some in the inverter electronics and some in the battery.
Certainly not trivial, and must be designed for, but vastly less than the actual charging power.
Sorry, that should be 12.5 kW of losses. (Note to self — do not try mental math before coffee kicks in…)
The efficiencies are very likely higher than this, so the actual losses somewhat lower.
Well, the utter impracticality is one thing. But the need is not validated and – if it even were – not all things serving such a need are appropriate. The removal of democracy and freedom being prime among those things. Not to mention the “let’s eliminate 3/4ths of the people on earth and sterilize what’s left” or “force them to live in poverty” solutions..
People in poor countries purchase second hand vehicles because they can’t afford anything else. They certainly cannot afford electric vehicles.
I find that most people pushing for these sort of policies have no real concept of what it is to be truly poor.
And no interest in educating themselves.
From the LA Times editorial board, as quoted in the above article,: “Climate scientists tell us that we have less than a decade to make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions — including those from internal combustion engines — if we have any hope of staving off the worst effects of global warming.”
Well, only a relatively few “climate scientists” tell us what the LA Times asserts, especially about the less-than-a-decade BS.
As to “the worst effects of global warming“, did we just see that with the several weeks of terribly cold temperatures that swept through Texas last month???
According to the prognosticators from the 70’s and 80’s, we should be dead by now.
Morning walks in LA are blessed with the sights of piddling and defecating dogs and wretched homeless human beings. One might have thought that the LA Times might give pause, get off its high horse and desist in lecturing us mere mortals.
I find it amazing that “climate scientists” are always being quoted in major news publications as telling us things, but they never name them or interview them.
Is it that hard to be journalist or an editor today?
When you are making up a quote, it’s best not to actually name a source.
Mandating electric vehicles in a state that often has power outages
The stupid is great in this one
Now, just imagine a record cold in a Texas that is based on electric vehicles.
I didn’t think the LA Times could be more Progressive biased until it was bought by a Chinese investor recently. Now it is a full on propaganda vehicle. Woke this and woke that. It even included a multi page insert a few months back on the glories of China. Conservative input is limited to a single highly censored column in the back pages (when allowed). This is how the media and Left is attacking America. Nothing but Marxist ideology ….. including sports figure pronouncements …. is allowed. Anyone/thing with Conservative viewpoint is either attacked or ignored. The LA Times announced years ago it would no longer print anything critical of AGW think. The world slept while the Marxists bought the media.
The catistrophic global warming climate kooks keep spreading conspiracy theories about a climate emergency which doesn’t exist!
“Compare this to a gasoline filling station, which is essentially just a big underground gasoline tank and a pump.”
I cannot fathom why the Demo/Progs haven’t thought of just storing electricity underground. What an easy to recharge e-vehicles!
australia mg ev
$43K
The title is almost correct. Take away “Gasoline” and the title is perfect. Yes, liberals want no cars on the road – except for the elite liberals and politicians and their donors. At that point, driving would be fun, without all the riff raff on the road.
Electric vehicles is just a step towards that goal, for we all know there isn’t enough electric power to power a 100% EV state of California AND there isn’t much effort being put into creating the infrastructure to do that. Just the opposite, as liberals want to decommission existing nuclear plants and take away coal and natural gas and even hydroelectric power in favor of wind and solar and other minor green power sources.
So at some point, driving EV will be impossible, and we will all have to rely on mass transit, the bullet train (for those wanting to from Madera to Bakersfield) and bicycles or walking. And you will have to move closer to your workplace to accomplish that.
That’s the green goal. The vast majority of people without cars (and without freedom) dependent on the government for energy, while the elite government politicians, bureaucrats and their donors with cars and wide open roads to enjoy them. Just like the good old days of the USSR.
Spot on.
> without some major breakthroughs, all electric national vehicle fleets
> are just as much of a fantasy as the rest of the green package of
> climate “solutions”
I believe that the key point we must take on board is that they don’t intend there to be national vehicle fleets of electric-only cars. The intention here is that the vast majority of people (and probably most smaller businesses) simply won’t have their own private cars.
The idea (in as much as it has been thought through) is that people will rely on walking, on cycling, on public transport, and on (heavily regulated) pay-per-use car schemes.
Yes, this will eliminate much of modern working and social life as we know it and cause smaller, non-city communities to become economically non-viable, but that does seem to be the plan.
In brief, they know that one-for-one replacement of existing oil-based vehicles with electric-only ones is impossible within the stated timeframes. Most of us are simply going to lose their cars and the personal freedom, economic opportunity, spontaneity, and liberty that comes with them.
I want to ban all movie production other than climate scare training films–for the children.
That NYT’s editorial… go check what model vehicle that editor drives.
From the article – “ vehicles that will, on average, continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere”
Well, there you go. Such propaganda.
I would suggest doing what they want. In L.A. only ban gasoline powered vehicles. Then after the economy comes to a screeching halt and after the Times editors have been tarred and feathered maybe the people will come to their senses. But then again maybe not. After all it is California.
People still read the LA Times? They should stop printing it to save the planet because of all the beautiful trees that are cut down to print that rag.