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”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.