h/t Fox News – Includes video; We’re all used to President Biden’s hilarious gaffs, Biden accidentally saying the quiet part out loud, but this one takes the peach.
What are we supposed to believe?
Are high gasoline prices part of the plan, to force the USA to embrace EVs? Given all the cancelled drilling lease sales and cancelled pipeline projects, I suggest there are good grounds to think so.
So stop complaining peasant, and get on with doing what your government wants you to do.
Of course, if you can’t afford an EV, there’s always public transport, at least in the cities. Or if you are worried about crime, you could just stay home. Greens think Americans commute too much, so encouraging you not to leave your house is probably part of the transition plan.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s more than one meaning to incredible. I think Brandon means strained, labored, unconvincing or unbelievable. None of these are good.
But this is all be design. We’re going to decarbonize no matter the costs. You people that don’t like it? Maybe you’re too biased or stupid to know what’s good for you.
“I think Brandon means . . .”
Well, in context, Brandon clearly states that God has a part to play in this “incredible transition”.
Separation of church and state? . . . forget about it.
They don’t have the competency to execute any such plan.
I recall a conversation in Atlas Shrugged where the elites were talking about the deleterious effects of their policies. To paraphrase, the response was Americans have had it too good for too long. It will be good for them to suffer a little.
Has it occurred to anyone else that we are living in the lead-up to Atlas Shrugged?
Has it occurred to anyone else that we are living in the lead-up to Atlas Shrugged?
lead-up?
The arrogance displayed while destroying the US is only possible because they don’t have to worry about elections.
The picture will be complete when he adorns the Jimmy Carter sweater and talks of malaise.
Destruction of the middle class is a key element of the reset. Designed to impoverish them into dependence and a hand to mouth existence. The plandemic resulted in the biggest transfer of wealth to the 1% in history. Small business was destroyed in favor of large corporations.
Europe is giving up the battle to replace Russian gas with renewables. They are signing on for Russian gas long term. This is the end of the reckless, brainless “transition”. They can foresee the pitchforks in the streets, I reckon.
“Italy’s ENI said Tuesday that it had started the process of opening two accounts with Gazprombank, one in euros and another in rubles….
German energy company RWE (RWEOY) told CNN Business on Tuesday that it had opened a new bank account to pay for its Russian gas imports ….,
France’s Engie (ENGIY) also said Tuesday that it had found a compromise with Gazprom….”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/17/energy/europe-russia-gas-payments/index.html
They will call it a bridge to the transition, but this is a way to pass that burnt offering to the next batch of leaders who will not dare to step back into the green merde. So this is how the show ends. Let’s see who among the ideologue trolls who comment here is the last to leave. Some have changed sides, but we are down to the diehards now.
Says the leader of the huge, armored SUV caravan.
Life without petroleum-based products
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84689/
I think that you’ll especially like this video demonstration:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/video-of-the-day-life-without-petroleum-based-products/
Obama’s Energy Secretary, “Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
Brandon (and his handlers) did it.
Now we can “transition” back to the stone age!
(Stone tools don’t give off CO2.)
“What are we supposed to believe?”
I believe my government can go to hell.
This will be a VERY long and Painful transition if EVs are the preferred option.
After 30-years since their introduction in California EVs are displacing 3.5% of our petroleum use. Yes, they are growing by leaps and bounds and by 2030 they should displace 6.3%. EVs are the second slowest petroleum reduction option, next to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Here is my recent article with greater details. Electric Vehicles: How California is helping to reduce petroleum demand in the face of the Ukraine conflict – Stillwater Associates
Just putting a percentage of EVs on the road (displacing an equal percentage ICE vehicles) does NOT mean that there is that same percentage reduction in fossil fuel use from EVs.
According the the latest figures from the EIA (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 ), fossil fuels are used to produce 61% of the total electricity used annually in the US. In comparison, “renewable” energy sources account for only 20% of total electricity production.
As a practical matter, you cannot call up your local electrical utility company and demand that they only supply your home with electricity from renewable energy sources . . . same for when you plug into EV recharging stations at work, at public/private parking areas, and even at—you guessed it—Tesla Supercharging stations.
Bottom line: EVs continue to rely on electricity generated from fossil fuels . . . to the tune of about 61% of what is used to recharge them, that is.
I hope you understand that what both are saying is 100% correct. EVs displace petroleum use by avoiding gasoline consumption, a petroleum product (which is a fossil fuel). EVs consume fossil fuel (natural gas) and renewables.
And yes, that is correct that EVs do not displace (or replace a gasoline vehicle one-for-one. In my overly complex calculations, too detailed, and boring, to give all the explanations, short-range EVs displace 65% and long-range EVs displace 95% of a gasoline car, annual miles traveled. In California we have next to zero petroleum fueled power plants beside a small and seldom run, emergency backup generators but do have 40-60% natural gas fossil fueled power grid depending on the year. So EVs are charged on fossil fuel (natural gas) and renewables but not petroleum. Hope that clarifies the petroleum vs fossil fuels. Recovering California Energy Commission Automotive Engineer
Thanks for the reply. I do understand what you’re saying and that you cannot delineate all of the details of your calculations.
However, for the benefit of WUWT readers, I note that you state:
“In California we have next to zero petroleum fueled power plants beside a small and seldom run, emergency backup generators but do have 40-60% natural gas fossil fueled power grid depending on the year.”
This is true as far as it goes, but IMHO it doesn’t go far enough. There is this:
“California’s in-state utility-scale electricity generation equaled about four-fifths of the state’s electricity retail sales in 2021, and the rest of its supply came from out of state. California imports more electricity than any other state and typically receives between one-fifth and one-third of its electricity supply from outside of the state . . . In 2020, wind energy and hydropower facilities each supplied about one-fifth of California’s imported electricity. Other, unspecified sources supplied nearly one-fifth of imports. Nuclear energy and natural gas each accounted for more than one-tenth, and coal fueled less than one-tenth . . . coal-fired power plants supplied about 9% of imports . . . essentially all imports of coal-fired generation are projected to end by 2026” (source: https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA )
So,those “other states” supply electricity—20-33% of the annual total used in California—from a mix of “renewables”, nuclear, natural gas, and yes, even dirty coal.