Electric Cars Are Not “Zero-Emission Vehicles”

By James D. Agresti

While praising California’s decision to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, Governor Gavin Newsom declared that this will require “100% of new car sales in California to be zero-emission vehicles” like “electric cars.” In reality, electric cars emit substantial amounts of pollutants and may be more harmful to the environment than conventional cars.

Toxic Pollution

The notion that electric vehicles are “zero-emission” is rooted in a deceptive narrative that ignores all pollutants which don’t come out of a tailpipe. Assessing the environmental impacts of energy technologies requires measuring all forms of pollution they emit over their entire lives, not a narrow slice of them. To do this, researchers perform “life cycle assessments” or LCAs. As explained by the Environmental Protection Agency, LCAs allow for:

the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life cycle, often including impacts not considered in more traditional analyses (e.g., raw material extraction, material transportation, ultimate product disposal, etc.). By including the impacts throughout the product life cycle, LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product and process selection.

LCAs are subject to multiple levels of uncertainty, but an assessment published by the Journal of Cleaner Production in 2021 shatters the notion that electric cars are cleaner than conventional ones, much less “zero emission.” The LCA found that manufacturing, charging, operating, and disposing of electric vehicles produces more of every major category of pollutants than conventional cars. This includes:

an increase in fine particulate matter formation (26%), human carcinogenic (20%) and non-carcinogenic toxicity (61%), terrestrial ecotoxicity (31%), freshwater ecotoxicity (39%), and marine ecotoxicity (41%) relative to petrol vehicles.

Foreshadowing that result, a 2018 report by the European Environment Agency warned that studies on the “human toxicity impacts” of electric vehicles were “limited” and that electric cars “could be responsible for greater negative impacts” than conventional cars.

Similarly, a 2018 article in the journal Environmental Research Letters stated that a failure to account for the “environmental implications” of mining lithium to make batteries for electric cars “would directly counter the intent” of “incentivizing electric vehicle adoption” and “needs to be urgently addressed.”

The 2021 paper in the Journal of Cleaner Production has now addressed this issue, and it shows electric cars emit more toxic pollution than gasoline-powered cars. Yet, politicians who embraced the electric car agenda before comprehensive data was available continue to plow ahead in spite of the facts.

Local Pollution

Regardless of overall toxic emissions, the European Environment Agency points out that electric vehicles “potentially offer local air quality benefits” because pollution from their manufacturing, charging, and disposal is usually emitted away from densely populated areas.

Simply stated, switching to electric cars transfers pollution from urbanites in wealthy nations to poor countries that mine and manufacture their components and to communities with power plants and disposal sites. In the words of the 2021 paper in the Journal of Cleaner Production, this “transfer of environmental burdens” causes “workers and ecosystems in third countries” to be “exposed to higher rates of toxic substances.”

China dominates the global supply chains for green energy components not merely because of cheap labor but because they have lax environmental standards that tolerate the pollution these products create. Thus, China supplies 78% of the world’s solar cells, 80% of the world’s lithium-ion battery chemicals, and 73% of the world’s finished battery cells.

Highlighting the implications of “China’s role in supplying critical minerals for the global energy transition,” a 2022 study by the Brookings Institute found that “continued reliance on China” will “increase the risk that sourcing of critical minerals will cause or contribute to serious social or environmental harms.” It also documents that the U.S. and other wealthy nations have been unwilling to accept these harms on their own soils.

Even if Newsom disregards the health of poor and slave laborers in other nations, electric vehicles are still not “zero-emission” for the people of California. This is because electric vehicles emit pollutants from road, tire, and brake wear, and these forms of pollution are worse in electric vehicles than standard cars. Per a 2016 paper in the journal Atmospheric Environment, “Electric vehicles are 24% heavier than their conventional counterparts,” and this creates more “non-exhaust emissions” like “tire wear, brake wear, road surface wear and resuspension of road dust.”

Greenhouse Gases

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity, and the 2021 paper in the Journal of Cleaner Production found that electric cars emit 48% less CO2 than gasoline-powered ones. Although this is lower, it is still far from “zero-emission.”

Moreover, a study published by the Ifo Institute of Germany in 2019 found that an electric Tesla Model 3 emits 11% to 28% more CO2 over its lifespan than a diesel Mercedes C220D. Again, LCAs are subject to uncertainty, and no single study is an end-all, but this clearly proves that electric vehicles are far from emission-free.

With no regard for those facts, Gavin Newsom asserts that “California now has a groundbreaking, world-leading plan to achieve 100% zero-emission vehicle sales” that will help “solve this climate crisis.”

Contrary to Newsom’s claim of a “climate crisis,” a wide array of environmental and human welfare measures related to climate change have stayed level or improved for more than three decades. This includes foliage productivity, extinction rates, forest cover, agricultural production, coastal flooding, rainfall and droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and extreme weather fatalities. These empirical facts refute more than 30 years of failed predictions by global warming alarmists.

Newsom then adds another layer of deception by stating that the plan reduces “dangerous carbon emissions” that “pollute our communities.” This misportrays CO2 as a toxic, dirty substance. In reality, it is an organic, colorless, non-carcinogenic gas that has no toxic effects on humans until concentrations exceed at least 6 times the level in Earth’s atmosphere.

Referring to CO2 as “carbon” is also unscientific. That’s because CO2 is not carbon, just like H2O (water) is not hydrogen. There are more than 10 million different carbon compounds, and calling CO2 “carbon” conflates this relatively innocuous gas with highly noxious substances like carbon monoxide and black carbon.

In summary, there is no reliable evidence that greenhouse gas reductions from electric cars will benefit anyone.

Consequences

Like Newsom, the California Air Resources Board boasts that “100% of new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles” by 2035. Assuming Newsom and the board members have at least a rudimentary knowledge of electric cars, calling them “zero-emission vehicles” is a lie.

A Google search reveals that journalists and many others are also using this inherently false phrase.

The harms of this deceit extend well beyond pollution. This is because electric cars are more costly than other options, and that’s why people rarely buy electric cars unless governments subsidize or mandate them. As documented by a 2021 paper in the journal Transport and Environment:

Mass market adoption of electric vehicles will likely require either that governments restrict the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles (as planned in some countries and California) or that BEVs [battery electric vehicles] become cost-competitive with gasoline-powered vehicles of similar size and styling.

Regardless of whether these additional costs are paid by consumers or taxpayers, they make people poorer because these expensive cars ultimately travel fewer miles for every dollar spent.

The same applies to other “clean energy” policies that are prevalent in California. This is a major reason why it has the highest electricity prices in the continental U.S., or 77% more than the national average.

Such policies that increase the costs of living have contributed to making California the state with the highest real poverty rate in the nation.

Despite its “green” agenda, California dominates the American Lung Association’s list of cities with the poorest air quality in America. In fact, the nation’s worst four cities for ozone pollution, worst five cities for year-round particle pollution, and worst two cities for short-term particle pollution are all in California.

There are certainly many other factors besides energy policies that have led to those dreadful outcomes in California, but lying to people deprives them of the opportunity to make informed decisions about the pros and cons of these policies.

James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a research and educational institute dedicated to publishing rigorously documented facts about public policy issues.

4.8 46 votes
Article Rating
250 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 7, 2022 6:37 am

ok,nowI’mcensoredbymakingthecommentssectionunuseable?
Triators!Traitors!!!

PCman999
Reply to  cilo
September 7, 2022 8:59 am

I had the same problem yesterday on my PC trying to use Firefox to make a comment – all the spaces magically disappeared. I had to add spaces after writing out the whole comment or edit after the fact.
Chrome behaved normally and mobile Firefox didn’t have a problem either.

goldminor
Reply to  PCman999
September 7, 2022 6:06 pm

I switched some of activity over to MIcrosofts Edge, no problems there.

Bryan A
Reply to  goldminor
September 7, 2022 10:07 pm

I just got this one trying to refresh the site after about an hour which was taking FOREVER

429 Too Many Requests
You have been rate-limited for making too many requests in a short time frame.

Website owner? If you think you have reached this message in error, please contact support.

Last edited 26 days ago by Bryan A
TonyG
Reply to  cilo
September 7, 2022 9:05 am

I’m.curious..
For.me.the.comment.issue.only.appears.on.firefox.for.mac..Is.anyone.seeing.the.issue.on.windows?

Mac
Reply to  TonyG
September 7, 2022 9:14 am

Yes, every browser I use, Chrome, Firefox, Brave and Microsoft Edge. I can’t post comments on WUWT with any of them. I’m using my Android phone with no problem but it is tedious. I wonder if Chrome books work?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mac
September 7, 2022 12:48 pm

Test comment using Windows 10 Pro and Chrome on an older Dell desktop with Norton 360, Malwarebytes, and Adblock. (I allow WUWT on Adblock.)
If this shows up normally today, 9-7-2022, then the problem is not likely to be on WUWT’s end.
(Perhaps a recent update to an operating system or some other program?)

TonyG
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 7, 2022 1:36 pm

“not likely to be on WUWT’s end.”

When it’s cross-browser (Mac listed 4) and cross-platform (both Windows and mac), I would argue the opposite. Although likely not WUWT directly, rather a WP problem.

But I haven’t seen it for a couple hours, so maybe it’s been fixed?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Mac
September 7, 2022 12:48 pm

It recognizes spaces if text is being inserted—the workaround is to type a single letter into the edit box, then move the insertion point back to the top and type normally.  >> G

Oldseadog
Reply to  TonyG
September 7, 2022 9:22 am

I’ve been having this for several days on Firefox with Windows10 on a desktop.

Reply to  TonyG
September 7, 2022 9:35 am

I emailed the issue to them several days ago. Some people don’t appear to have the problem, but it is apparently cross-browser, too.
Does anyone else get the thing that I do, that most of the editing toolbar buttons are expanded to fit the entire frame for the comments?
By the way, I’m resolving this for the moment by using the source code edit tool (which doesn’t get expanded, for some reason – it’s the button with the two curly braces. But I’m a retired web developer, so typing in HTML is still normal for me. Not a good solution for everyone, obviously.
@Mods, @Anthony, @Webmaster – it really is time for you to find some other widget for supplying edit tools. This one has never worked well, and now it is entirely broken.

TonyG
Reply to  writing observer
September 7, 2022 10:49 am

So cross-browser would indicate a WordPress glitch. Interestingly, my last comment had the problem but this one doesn’t…

Yes, the editing controls are extremely large and I have to scroll quite a bit to get to the post button.

AndyHce
Reply to  TonyG
September 7, 2022 11:52 am

Another vote for the same intermittent corruption. Also, for a long time, those HTML controls are, randomly apparently, not available at all. In addition, while the ‘edit’ control is there and active, it, randomly, shows only an empty text box, not the comment that was entered and that I wish to correct. Nothing can be entered in that empty text box.

dk_
Reply to  TonyG
September 7, 2022 4:00 pm

Nailed it TonyG. Weird, changing WordPress behavior with the last couple browser updates of Chrome and Firefox. Does not hit all browsers or platforms the same way, and behavior changes even between individual comments within the same post. Some part of WP has been deprecated. One workaround for the disappearing spaces is to edit externally then paste in text to comment. Inconsistent display of editing/formatting icons in comment editor box also symptomatic. Unlikely to be only on the WUWT end.

Drake
Reply to  TonyG
September 7, 2022 11:08 am

I use Chrome and have had no problems. Several days ago the comment section LOOKED funny, the bold, italics, etc. only being shown as boxes, but it still worked.

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
Reply to  TonyG
September 7, 2022 5:48 pm

I’m seeing the same type of problems “most” of the time for the past week or so. The bold, italic, etc. buttons are huge, and the edit box removes spaces. I’m using the latest Firefox on Windows 11.

Reply to  cilo
September 7, 2022 9:44 am

Aliens from outer space have taken over comment modification. They delete comments at random to show who is boss. Or the FBI, I’m not sure which.

Sometimes you can compose your comment on a notepad and cut and paste it to enter it here. If that does not work, then you need a computer fixing stick
2″ x 4″ x 12″ Smack computer on the left side.

Drake
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 7, 2022 11:09 am

Oh no, what can I do, I am right handed?

Rich Morton
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 8, 2022 11:59 am

What you have just described is known in my IT circles as a ‘PC Adjustment Wrench‘, or “PAW“.
They are very effective, and you can use them universally – any brand PC, use it on either side (or top/bottom), and can also be used on laptop as well as desktop models.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  cilo
September 7, 2022 10:14 am

I had the problem on another website, not on WUWT. It must be something to do with the latest version of Firefox that went in last week.

AndyHce
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
September 7, 2022 11:53 am

Even when it happens the same way with other browsers?

yirgach
Reply to  cilo
September 7, 2022 11:01 am

Yes, I’ve been seeing this off and on for several days now. The script which writes the control icons (like Bold, Italic, etc) for the REPLY box seems to broken for both Firefox and Brave. Chrome is not affected. This is using Windows 7.

Gunga Din
Reply to  yirgach
September 7, 2022 1:18 pm

I’ve noticed something like what you describe using chrome.
I can’t swear to it, but it seems that I’ve noticed it when I copy/paste from another site. (Maybe even I’ve used WUWT”s “search” pasting from an old comment?)

fretslider
September 7, 2022 6:42 am

Electric cars are far heavier than an ICE vehicle and consequently have a greater impact on roads. But because they are allegedly green they pay no road taxes. Thus far there have been other fringe benefits for owners of an EV

The Electric Vehicle Homecharge Scheme (EVHS) is a grant that provides a 75% contribution to the cost of one chargepoint and its installation. A grant cap is set at £350 (including VAT) per installation. “
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/customer-guidance-electric-vehicle-homecharge-scheme/electric-vehicle-homecharge-scheme-guidance-for-customers

“New energy price cap adds £660 to cost of charging electric car at home”
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/energy-price-cap-adds-660-to-charging-an-electric-car-aIvCc0A54RFe

The free ride is coming to an end.

mkelly
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 8:48 am

Government has recognized this reduction in tax revenue from EV’s. The oft suggested per mile fee is one idea for recouping that revenue. But charging for vehicle tag by weight which is already in some states will also off set losses.

If they stopped giving state tax incentives for buying an EV there wouldn’t be as much need to go find other sources.

fretslider
Reply to  mkelly
September 7, 2022 9:40 am

That’s where road pricing comes in

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 9:59 am

Charged for roads we already paid for. FOAD!

Marty Cornell
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 7, 2022 2:36 pm

ever hear of maintenance?

MarkW
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 8, 2022 9:46 am

It takes money to build new roads.

Gerry, England
Reply to  MarkW
September 9, 2022 6:24 am

Road pricing or adding it as a tax to fuel penalises those of us who live in rural communities and MUST drive to live our lives as we will clock up more miles. Vehicles weight plays a major part in road damage but if you make trucking more expensive we will all get the bill in the end. So given that roads are a national resource perhaps they should be funded from general taxation.

AndyHce
Reply to  mkelly
September 7, 2022 11:55 am

But that would not repay the political contributors and lobbyist.

Reply to  mkelly
September 7, 2022 2:59 pm

As a rider of motorcycles, I hope they move to a weight-and-mile tax, and move away from a gas tax.  I get 50 MPG, my bike weighs 800 pounds.  I do about 0.06% of the damage to the road that a Tesla Model S or X does.  Yet I pay way more road repair taxes.
Not to mention I get better MPG than just about any ICE on the road!

Gunga Din
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 1:32 pm

Here in the US, Federal and state taxes is part of the price for a gallon of gas at the pump for maintaining the roads.
Are there such a taxes added at EV charging stations? How about added when charging at home?
If not, why not?
They drive on the same roads as ICE’s. Same wear and tear on the roads whether or not they directly emit CO2.

Marty Cornell
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 7, 2022 2:37 pm

Look for a VMT tax (vehicle miles traveled)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Marty Cornell
September 7, 2022 4:03 pm

Would that show up on a recharge?
Seems like it would need to tie into the miles traveled rather than the energy to recharge.
(Not meant to be argumentative. “Oh what a tangled web they weave!”
The more “tangles”, the loopholes that don’t favor US! 😎

Gerry, England
Reply to  fretslider
September 9, 2022 6:19 am

A lot of them are failing the MOT on tyre tread. I admit I once failed a test on all 4 tyres and was kicking myself for not checking them but felt better as the exhaust failed as well but was not giving any sign of it. I wonder if the shorter life has caught out owners who don’t expect the tyres to be worn down at that point. One claim is that the instant torque delivery is behind it. Also said that special battery car tyres exist that should have better life but I suspect the difference is in the construction to take account of all the extra weight and not related to tread wear.

Spetzer86
September 7, 2022 6:42 am

Well, at least most Californians don’t have to worry “long, cold Winters”. I guess that’s something. And with the homeless they got all that cheap, diverse and creative housing popping up all over, so the costs of living should be going down. Still, RE won’t do it alone and only adds to costs when it’s included in a grid. Eventually, the system’s going to crack. Just wish CA didn’t have the purchasing power to drag the rest of us down with it.

Lawrence Todd
Reply to  Spetzer86
September 7, 2022 8:17 am

I think California should house the homeless in hotel sized homes with limited occupancy and we should start with Barbara Streisand’s Malibu home.

Drake
Reply to  Lawrence Todd
September 7, 2022 11:15 am

Now there is the start of a plan.

Now add:

The Pelosi compounds.
All beachfront or mountain properties owned by any government employee, elected or otherwise, “news” and entertainment personalities. Also any employee of a non-profit NGO.
Any and all homes in the Hollywood hills.

Designate 4 persons per bedroom and require the owner to feed and provide health care for the housed

Gunga Din
Reply to  Spetzer86
September 7, 2022 1:35 pm

Certain “Sanctuary Cities” in CA need more illegal emigrants.
Governor Abbot?
They need to live the “Change You Can Believe In!”

MarkW
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 8, 2022 9:56 am

I’ve been quite amused by the caterwauling I’ve been seeing from the mayors of several of these “sanctuary” cities over Abbot’s habit of sending bus loads of illegal immigrants to their cities.

They love illegals, but only so long as someone else has to deal with them.

H.R.
Reply to  Spetzer86
September 7, 2022 11:37 pm

Spetzer86: And with the homeless they got all that cheap, diverse and creative housing popping up all over […]”


I have very bad eyes and I first read that as “pooping up all over”. Sad to say, but it made sense since you were writing about The People’s Republic of California. I had to squint and look twice to see that you wrote ‘popping’.

mal
Reply to  Spetzer86
September 8, 2022 12:57 am

A good chunk of Californians live in places of long hot summers.  A dead car there and then is as fatal a a breakdown in the cold.  Of course it not as bad as long as you remembered to bring lots of water. At -40 all the water in the world is not going to help.  To bad our educated idiots don’t understand that.

Barnes Moore
September 7, 2022 6:44 am

I predict the entire EV market will collapse within 10 years for a variety of reasons. The western world is being run by a bunch of highly educated idiots who have zero understanding of scale.

fretslider
Reply to  Barnes Moore
September 7, 2022 6:53 am

I predict there will be a boom in the second-hand ICE car market as the availability of new cars  eventually dries up.

The Other Nick
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 7:22 am

There may be a boom in second hand ICE vehicles but at what price?

fretslider
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 7:39 am

I’d say they will get really expensive, possibly even greater than when new.

I would rather the climate madness were not with us, but it is what it is, and they are bonkers.

HotScot
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 8:34 am

I suspect the deadline for the UK mandate of stopping the sales of new ICE cars will be deferred by several years because of the two years of covid disruption “which has eaten into the time required to change people’s habits”.

Then for a few more years because “the international energy crisis hit manufacturers hard and they can’t meet demand/commitments”.

Then it will quietly slip from political sight by 2040.

Otherwise known as shuffling unpopular, expensive, vote killing policies into the long grass.

EV’s and particularly hybrids will survive. They are great for predictable journeys such as Amazon deliveries and milk floats, hybrids for reducing local emissions, but none of them will survive as mainstream transport over the next ten years or so.

Now, had the UK gone all out to dramatically improve public transport (in which case the number of cars on the road would reduce anyway) they might have gained traction. But NetZero ambitions tend to turn convention on its head, and without any acknowledgement of evolution rather than revolution, imposes diktat’s rather than persuading people to change their habits.

And doesn’t revolution tend to describe the eternal ambition of the left?

Watch Tesla and Elon very closely.

fretslider
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 9:13 am

For revolution read keeping us in charge

Drake
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 11:17 am

The price of second hand cars is already much higher in the US due to the so-called chip “crisis”.

mst
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 7:51 am

Yeah, unless that force another “cash-for-clunkers” scam.

HotScot
Reply to  mst
September 7, 2022 8:36 am

I’m not sure offering another taxpayer sponsored subsidy, on top of existing subsidies would either be popular, or get near to making EV’s cheap enough for the man in the street.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  HotScot
September 10, 2022 6:47 am

More to the point anyone with a lick of sense and who is not totally delusional DOES NOT WANT an EV. Unless you’re rich enough to have one as a strictly “local” ‘station car” and keep an ICE car for any trip beyond local errands, they are worse-than-useless.

Gunga Din
Reply to  mst
September 7, 2022 1:47 pm

If I’m not mistaken, one thing Cuba is known for is keeping non-chip-containing “clunkers” alive all these years.
Why did the US do “cash-for-clunkers”?

paul
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 7, 2022 6:24 pm

like this

9172A03D-8920-4446-99DE-B13B0FBD6DEF-1661267568.5113-300x199.jpeg
mal
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 8, 2022 1:04 am

Because the left deals on emotion not logic.  Destroying functioning items to push you agenda is not green in any shape or form.

MarkW
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 8, 2022 10:01 am

Obama was convinced that new cars were cleaner and more efficient than older cars. Cash-for-clunkers was a scheme to destroy used cars so that more people would have to buy new cars.

Typical elitist solution. The fact that most people buy used cars because that’s what they can afford was never considered.

lee riffee
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 7:55 am

I can see repair/restoration shops that would appear with the sole purpose of rebuilding and re-conditioning old ICE vehicles. These days, that is only done for “classic” and collectible cars, but if this comes to pass, it will be done for all sorts of cars and trucks. Rebuilding transmissions will be a lot more common. Anyone thinking traditional “grease monkeys” will go away might be very wrong!

fretslider
Reply to  lee riffee
September 7, 2022 8:25 am

Cuba could well be the model…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 11:27 am

We could give experienced Cuban mechanics special visas to help with keeping ICE cars on the road. Although, they might need some training for newer cars with computers, inasmuch as they usually work with 50s-vintage vehicles.

GuyFromBerlin
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 7, 2022 2:25 pm

Most of the mechanical components are still there even in a “computerized” vehicle, and if these will be found to regularly outlast the proprietary hardware, conversion to open-source electronics, or even to full-mechanical operation, will become part of the regular refurbishing procedures for used ICE cars.

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  lee riffee
September 7, 2022 8:36 am

Unfortunately I think gasoline stations will begin to disappear to prove their point.

HotScot
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
September 7, 2022 9:07 am

I’m not sure that’s possible. Pump numbers might be reduced to accommodate EV chargers but only about 2% of vehicles on the road globally right now are EV’s.

People know the charging infrastructure isn’t even close yet and too many people realise that EV’s will never be right for them as they don’t have driveways to charge them on.

If people want more than one EV on their drive they will be forced to install uprated power to their home and that will cost tens of thousands of $/£.

EV’s might be mandated but they will only ever achieve a limited uptake because when the wealthy are well provisioned with them, the concept hits brick walls like home charging/cost/range problems which are a big deal to those on limited incomes.

That might not be a problem if everywhere had outstanding public transport, but roads and society have been designed around personal, not public transport.

fretslider
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 9:15 am

They’ve put charging points on lamp posts (Siemans) in the streets where I live

HotScot
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 9:41 am

That’s always been an ambition but it can only go so far. Most of the UK’s lamp post’s are 240v so a single EV will take 8 hours+ to recharge. No chance of multiple vehicles.

So they upgrade a street with lamp post’s to 3 phase which can charge several cars rapidly. But where do the cars park unless they have long charging leads along pavements, which is illegal I believe.

We have around four or five lamp post’s within a reasonable distance of our house, and there’s probably 30 cars parked on the street. Unless devoted parking spots are going to be created for several cars at a time around each lamp post (impossible, not enough space) charging numerous cars is going to be a real problem.

And who gets priority? First come first served? There will be violence!

All this is entirely ignoring the cost of upgrading the underlying local grid, including sub stations etc. Who pays for that?

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 11:14 am

The wires that are powering the lights were sized with only powering lights in mind. Adding charging cars will be a significant increase in power demand. If every lamp post has 1 or 2 cars charging from it, there is going to have to be a major re-wiring of all the lights to handle all that extra current.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
September 8, 2022 10:04 am

I don’t know what the power difference between older style street lights and LED ones, but I would be surprised if it’s much over 100Ws.

jon Le Sage
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 11:33 am

kind of like the old west, several horses at the water trough parked outside the saloon.. Going from single phase to 3 phase will cost a little bit of money

mal
Reply to  jon Le Sage
September 8, 2022 1:07 am

Three phase is in most places.  WE just don’t know.  If you are close to a commercial building it has three phase.  The transformer in my back yard has three phase running to it.  Even though it in a residential area.

MarkW
Reply to  mal
September 8, 2022 10:06 am

All the power poles in my area just have two wires with a grounded neutral.

Slowroll
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 1:11 pm

Here’s the solution. Not very climate friendly I’m afraid…

d3f8413fe3630f0f.jpeg
Leslie MacMillan
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 3:50 pm

Yes, it’s the time it will take to charge that will annoy people. A minute or two per customer at an ATM or gasoline station is bearable but if each customer needs even 20 minutes the queue will become intolerable, especially since you can’t do anything else while waiting. If you go off to do another errand or pick up the kids from soccer, you lose your place.

MarkW
Reply to  Leslie MacMillan
September 8, 2022 10:09 am

Maybe they could use a system similar to what restaurants use.
Everyone gets a device that will signal them when the person ahead of them in line starts charging. That would give them 20 minutes to get back to the station.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Leslie MacMillan
September 11, 2022 6:34 am

And run your battery dead in addition to losing your place…

auto
Reply to  HotScot
September 9, 2022 12:59 am

HotScot,
A very valid question.
And, as has been asked before, where will the power to charge those EVs come from?
Still autumn evening – negligible solar [certainly in the UK], & no wind.
Does it have to be the unicorn farts? Again??

Auto

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  HotScot
September 11, 2022 6:32 am

More to the point, where will the electricity come from, when the buffoons in charge are working overtime to make the grid less reliable and more prone to regular outages even BEFORE considering the EXTRA demand that would be placed on it with any significant adoption of bev’s?!

H.R.
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 11:52 pm

Sunnuvagun! So…

Any fisticuffs over the charging points yet, fretslider?

If not, any other entertaining behaviors as people try to get the spot by the lamp posts?

Any ICE owners parking by the lamp posts just for the fun of it?

Waste of money because no one has bought EVs?

Do tell, do tell.

(Serious questions.)

MarkW
Reply to  H.R.
September 8, 2022 10:11 am

From my guestimates about how much energy is actually available at a street light charging station, you could be plugged in all night, and still not have a full charge in the morning.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 10:20 am

The UK is small and public transportation might work. It will never be useful for the US except in large urban areas.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
September 7, 2022 11:32 am

I have a novel idea: Build a high wall around Manhattan and similar cities and require everyone to stay inside.

H.R.
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 7, 2022 11:55 pm

Hey! We could have an annual competition called… ummm… lessee… Escape From New York!

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 11, 2022 6:37 am

A friend of mine used to say “make all the bridges and tunnels one way, all going OUT.”

Iain Reid
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
September 7, 2022 11:19 pm

Trying to Play Nice,

public transport in rural UK will never replace cars, the population density is too low.

MarkW
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
September 8, 2022 10:12 am

Even in large urban areas, it’s only marginally useful and anyone who can afford to not use them, doesn’t.

The Real Engineer
Reply to  MarkW
September 9, 2022 1:48 am

In Bristol (UK) they are reducing bus routes and frequency, not enough passengers! You couldn’t make it up, as the bus lanes have blocked up the traffic and in the city one gets about 6 miles/hr average speed, causing more pollution, so they are going to charge money for polluting vehicles!

HotScot
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 8:19 am

I’m eyeing up the new Land Rover Defender 500bhp petrol V8 at the moment. I would consider the 6 cylinder 400bhp model which in every other way other than outright performance is identical but half the price, other than it’s a plug in hybrid, and I don’t have a drive.

fretslider
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 8:26 am

If you opted for a Challenger tank you could – in theory – park it on somebody else’s car.  ;  )

HotScot
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 9:08 am

The Landy is the next best thing to a tank. 👍

Mr.
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 10:09 am

Back in the day, I used to do a fair bit of beach fishing.
I never got to pull a tank out of the sand with my LandCruiser, but I did pull out plenty of Land Rover Discoveries.

(ps – one of my mates had a Defender. Awesome truck)

James Allen
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 9:11 am

I predict this silly regulation will get revised before it is ever implemented.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 9:57 am

Already happening in UK.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 12:24 pm

Cubafornia in 2040

6B9CDE00-58E5-464F-9ADB-403B0DF99362.jpeg
mst
Reply to  Barnes Moore
September 7, 2022 7:49 am

Or Physics.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Barnes Moore
September 7, 2022 9:57 am

PPE. Piss Poor Ejumakashun!

Slowroll
Reply to  Barnes Moore
September 7, 2022 1:05 pm

Replace “highly educated” with “college attended” idiots. A degree in pan- Rurutanian gender studies is not an education.

mal
Reply to  Barnes Moore
September 8, 2022 1:02 am

I am in a deep debate about DNA, it is a Quaternary code which is of course digital.  They cannot accept that description even every day they deal in it.  They did not label the digits 0 through three instead they use letter but in the end it all the same.  Our educated idiots in the end cannot see the forest from the trees. 

Peter W
September 7, 2022 6:52 am

Of course, these claims all have to do strictly with the direct use of the vehicle, and do not consider the realities of recharging them. We are having enough trouble merely providing “clean” electricity sufficient to power our every-day living without having to consider the recharge problems, which are not insignificant. Keep in mind that much vehicle use is during the day, and recharging is often at night when there is no solar power, and often little or no wind available. I have not yet heard that we even have enough solar and wind during the day to fill our needs, much less store additional energy to recharge vehicles at night.

HotScot
Reply to  Peter W
September 7, 2022 8:38 am

More fundamentally, in the Uk at least, 45% of households don’t have a driveway.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 11:36 am

There you go confusing people with inconvenient facts! It is best to let the unthinking people find out the hard way that they are being lied to. That way they don’t have any skeptics to blame.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 11, 2022 6:41 am

The problem with that being the rest of us have to suffer through their ‘lesson learning’ with them.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Peter W
September 7, 2022 11:32 pm

Peter,

from what I have seen studies that determine CO2 output from charging electric cars use the average CO per megawatt hour from generation which gives a misleading and flattering to evs figure.
When demand rises CO2 from generation rises because renewables and nuclear cannot react to demand increase, this is met by fossil fuel generation. This is true even at night.
Essentially evs are charged by fossil fuelled electricity, this is true even for France which was nearly 80% nuclear (until their maintenance woes).

Unless the non CO2 generation average generated capacity is substantially increased to outpace ev (and heat pump) up take, CO2 emissions can only rise from this ‘zero emission’ push.
In the UK we are losing three to four Gigawatt of nuclear in the next few years (end of life) so needs at least six to eight gigawatts of offshore wind to be commissioned in that time just to stay level.

MarkW
Reply to  Iain Reid
September 8, 2022 10:18 am

6 to 8 GW of wind assumes a 50% availability. The absolute best that has been recorded is more like 35% with most locations not getting even that much.
At an absolute minimum you would need 9 to 12 GWs. If you want to have enough extra power to store for those occasions when the wind doesn’t blow for a few days, you will need to increase the number of wind mills by a factor of between 2 and 10.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
September 11, 2022 6:48 am

And since you can’t store enough for extended periods of wind-doesn’t-blow-at-the-right-speeds, you don’t need more wind mills, you need to replace with nuke, coal, oil, or gas.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Iain Reid
September 11, 2022 6:46 am

Sorry, but 6-8 GW of offshore wind only replaces 3-4 GW on nuclear in ‘green’ wet dreams.

3-4 GW of 24/7 generation can’t be replaced by ANY AMOUNT of “when the wind blows at the ‘right speeds” generation.

Mike
September 7, 2022 6:53 am

Wow, that is a lot of info to digest in one gulp. I knew electric cars aren’t living up to the hype but didn’t know it was this bad. I wonder if by 2035 California residents will wake up and stop voting for Democrats?

Reply to  Mike
September 7, 2022 7:09 am

All the intelligent people have probably moved away by then. It has already started …

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  SasjaL
September 11, 2022 6:50 am

Trouble is, the idiots have also been leaving – and they take their stupid voting choices with them…they don’t learn anything from the destruction their donkey heroes cause…

MarkW
Reply to  Mike
September 7, 2022 8:15 am

By 2035, the election laws will be modified to the point where it won’t matter who the people vote for, the Democrats will still win.

Doonman
Reply to  Mike
September 7, 2022 9:37 am

By 2035, all Californians who are not movie stars, ethnic minorities, homeless, on welfare or SEIU members will have all left anyway as there will be nothing left to stay for.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Doonman
September 7, 2022 11:38 am

Yes, even the scenery is burning up — or down.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 7, 2022 12:54 pm

Now they want to up the minimum wage to $22/hr; the only ones to benefit from this will be state and local governments through tax $$$$ boosting.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 7, 2022 8:11 pm

The governments won’t benefit if they drive small businesses out of business, or the businesses do away with employees.

Saturday was National Cinema day. I decided to finally go see the latest Top Gun release. To my surprise, the Regal theater that was built with a lobby to sell tickets, no longer has people working behind the counter. There are several kiosk-like displays sitting on the counter that only take credit cards. They still have some people inside at the refreshments counter serving teenagers without credit cards, but the line was unbelievably slow.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/19/media/regal-cinemas-financial-trouble/index.html

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 8, 2022 10:26 am

Any low skill job can be replaced by automation. The only limiting factor is cost.

It was at least 15 years ago when I read about a machine that someone had built that could make hamburgers without any human intervention. Someone would load the machine with uncut tomatoes, lettuce cheese and ground beef. Also containers containing ketchup, mustard, etc.

The customer would walk up to a kiosk and enter the order and the machine would create a custom made burger on the spot.
At the time it was too expensive for the mass market, but with 15 years of improvements and a $22 minimum wage, a lot more places would be able to afford it.

Bill Toland
September 7, 2022 6:58 am

Electric cars won’t stop air pollution in cities. In fact, since electric cars are heavier than traditional cars, particulate matter pollution from tyres will actually increase.

https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/this-is-why-electric-cars-won't-stop-air-pollution

The Other Nick
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 7, 2022 7:26 am

You left out the small issue of road wear caused by the EVs. Wait till “EV” trucks hit the highways and people complain about the dammage caused. Though the overall gross weight will be the same I suspect just the actual load carried may be less per truck.

In OZ it could be interesting with the B-Doubles and B-Triples on the highways plus odd structured road trains.

mst
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 7:55 am

And those battery pack swap stations every 100 Klicks from one end of the country to the other are going to be an interesting sight. Charging stations? Oh, well, if you want your shipments delayed an extra few weeks, and a massive electric grid infrastructure project along otherwise deserted highways… Not to mention where to find the juice to juice it.

HotScot
Reply to  mst
September 7, 2022 8:41 am

Nuclear powered road trains.

It’s the only way.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 10:01 am

Hydrogen, maybe?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 7, 2022 11:40 am

If you like humidity.

HotScot
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 7, 2022 3:57 pm

Fine, if you want to pay £20 a Litre for the stuff.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  mst
September 7, 2022 11:39 am

Another gift from the great halls of Progress.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 9:03 am

I don’t believe there will ever be any EV transport trucks operating for profit on US roads. Key words being “for profit”. The laws of physics just won’t allow it.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 10:30 am

There is a lot of hype and virtue signalling about what we call Class 8 trucks (GVWR over 33,001 lbs) in the US, but the reality is that there are none. From what’s been shown of EV pickups trying to tow, I don’t think these will ever be available. There was an article on WUWT some time ago that estimated the battery size and reduced payload. They are just not economically feasible.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 11, 2022 12:37 pm

If “EV” trucks are adopted, the damage caused won’t be the issue; the roads plugged with “EV” trucks with dead batteries will be a MUCH bigger issue, and MUCH more quickly than any issues regarding road damage.

Besides, if weight limits are kept the same, road damage won’t change. Less goods will be carried with each load due to battery weight displacing cargo weight as a fraction of the total weight allowed, and this will further drive up the cost of, well, EVERYTHING, thereby making all but those “investing” in the government boondoggle poorer (once again).

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 7, 2022 10:00 am

And brakes.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 7, 2022 11:45 am

Well, to be fair, regenerative braking may reduce the wear on brake linings to what the potential extra wear would be from the increased weight.

Does anyone know how what the stopping distance is of a Tesla compared to a similar 4-passenger ICE vehicle?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 7, 2022 2:10 pm

Hmmm I remember years ago seeing an episode of a show on The History Channel (before they went looking Bigfoot or Ancient Aliens) that had a part that had to do with tires and road noise. (I don’t remember if the focus was on tires or road surfaces).
I was surprised to learn that most of the noise from a road isn’t from the engines or motors of the vehicles on the road but rather from the tires impacting the road.
Does an EV version of a vehicle produce more noise than an ICE version since they are heavier?
Honest question. I don’t know.

Last edited 27 days ago by Gunga Din
MarkW
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 8, 2022 10:29 am

I’m going to guess that because the cars are heavier, they are going to have wider tires. If the tires are wider, then there would be more material striking the road surface as the car moves forward. Which would make the tires noisier.

John Endicott
September 7, 2022 7:02 am

Assuming Newsom and the board members have at least a rudimentary knowledge of electric cars, calling them “zero-emission vehicles” is a lie

 
Jerry, Just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.” – George Costanza.

“Because when you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME” – Benny Hill in a fake German accent writing on a blackboard.

Last edited 27 days ago by John Endicott
Gunga Din
Reply to  John Endicott
September 7, 2022 2:17 pm

The “ME” part is up to the listener.
Lot’s of ME’s out there in “Green”Land!

Dave
September 7, 2022 7:03 am

We were planning on retiring in Southern California, but as the years have passed and the political situation in the state has become even more of a monkey house, we decided to pass on that idea. We can’t see the practicality of making a drive from the LA area to Oregon in three days rather than two, because we have to spend hours charging our ‘green’ electric car. The only thing that might save the state is if enough voters come to their senses and remove the idiots who keep foisting these insane ideas on the public. This ‘green’ nonsense is just one of many regressive ideas in that state.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Dave
September 7, 2022 9:31 am

Why not rent an apartment each month in various places, including southern CA. After 12 months you might find a place you like, and also decide that neither CA nor OR are a good fit. Or do 2-week stints. Then you could evaluate 24 places.
Go to each place in its “off season” — for example, you may like Wolf Creek Montana in June but not in December.

MarkW
Reply to  paul
September 8, 2022 10:31 am

Would those be the same in-laws who donated DeSantis’s campaign?

Dave
Reply to  John Hultquist
September 8, 2022 9:56 am

That became the new plan, after looking at all the alternatives. Rent for a few months, enjoy the beach and weather and recreational opportunities, and escape.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave
September 7, 2022 11:57 am

California, and especially the southern part of the state, has numerous problems, not the least of which is lawlessness:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-22/street-takeovers-sideshow-deadly-toll-los-angeles
All of the problems are beyond the ability of those like Newsom and other Democrats to deal with. They keep throwing things at the wall to see if anything sticks.

dk_
September 7, 2022 7:07 am

Not zero-emission, but NIMBY emissions. Not net-zero power production, but NIMBY power production. For a California climate disaster cultist, zero means “not in my back yard.”

Reply to  dk_
September 7, 2022 5:05 pm

I’ve seen the term “displaced emission vehicles” used in place of zero-emission.
Much more accurate, but it neglects the important local pollution effects mentioned above.

RickWill
September 7, 2022 7:08 am

a rudimentary knowledge of electric cars, calling them “zero-emission vehicles” is a lie.

Such lies simply change the meaning of words.

It is like “renewables”. There is no current wind or solar energy extraction devices that are sustainable. They consume more energy than they can produce in their current lifespan.

So the term “renewable energy” in describing wind and solar energy extractors is misuse of language. It is false advertising.

In due course “zero emission vehicle” will become synonymous with battery electric vehicle. The language gets altered to lose its precision. These behemoths are the antithesis of intelligent design and resource conservation. They are gross indulgences of the wealthy. The BMW iX; 2,440kg of expensive and genuinely ugly crap. The designers should be locked up for crimes against humanity. How can 2.440kg of exotic materials be extracted from the natural resources and converted to that amount of crap on 4 wheels to most often transport an 80kg human for thousand kilometres a year and claim to be “zero emission”? It is as UGLY as any design could be and comes from the minds of Germans who deserve to freeze this coming winter for their gross stupidity. Embracing the demonising of CO2 without question. Lemmings off the cliff.

One of the first cars I wished I owned was a BMW 2000. This vehicle weighed 1040kg. A tad heavier than the TS Passat I could afford that weighed 830kg. The BMW looked nice and was a class above most other vehicles of the early 1970s. The USA built cars sold by the acre and with the handling of a London bus (in fact worse). The BMW 2000 displayed intelligent design; light and nimble. Now BMW design and build ugly monsters. The brand has lost its morality. Mercedes have always been heavy, very expensive hulks. Now BMW and Mercedes are both producing these ugly BEV behemoths.

Oldseadog
Reply to  RickWill
September 7, 2022 9:35 am

Renewables are called that because they don’t last for very long so you have to keep renewing them.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Oldseadog
September 7, 2022 2:24 pm

Hopefully, more people (and politicians?) are realizing that “renewable” is not the same as “reusable”.
They all dispose of resources better used elsewhere.

The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 7:16 am

Ok slightly off topic but anyway:
 
What is “net zero emissions”?
 
Here in OZ the entertaining Senator Hanson asked the other entertaining Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong what it was in simple layman, or if one insist layperson, terms what that actually means.
 
No answer.
 
I had a thought on this EV stuff and decided, well long ago, it was a bit suspect.
 
As a good example:
 
I run a wheat farm. Yes huge acreage. I bring in the usual contractors for seeding and also harvesting. Harvest time they turn up with 2 headers on 4 semis and 5 semis for grain cartage. My place takes 5 days at 24/7 to harvest. 
 
How in the ‘what ever’ will all this work if everything has gone green hydrogen, EV or what ever the idiots in the big city think?
 
Just remember once these guys finish on my place they are straight to the next farm. No breaks. This runs for the whole harvest season, 3 months.
 
Do then have to capture the escaping rear end gas from the sheep as they clean up the stubble from the harvest?
 
 

fretslider
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 7:47 am

“What is “net zero emissions”?”

A neat bit of word play. In short, it means balancing emissions with uptakes and offsets.

Only the very devout will give up their breathing privileges for the good of the planet. For that is true zero emissions – not including decomposition processes, of course.

Last edited 27 days ago by fretslider
Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 10:02 am

All greentards who believe in net zero should stop exhaling CO2 right now!

Alasdair
Reply to  fretslider
September 7, 2022 4:40 pm

To me “net zero emissions” means “Corrupt indulgency Practices”.

HotScot
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 8:48 am

What is “net zero emissions”?

Magic thinking.

Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 9:47 am

Atmospheric CO2 level stops increasing, at least.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 7, 2022 10:03 am

Really? What about ocean outgassing as the planet warms? You display greentarditis.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 7, 2022 12:10 pm

Also, carbon dioxide and methane, sequestered since the Pleistocene, is being released from the Arctic as the planet warms.

HotScot
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 7, 2022 3:58 pm

Please don’t start him.

Slowroll
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 7, 2022 1:15 pm

As if that’s a problem?

Bryan A
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 10:00 am

To have “net zero” emission crops you would need to have a balance between the CO2 taken up by the crop growth and the CO2 expended in it’s planting, harvesting, threshing, transportation and processing into end product (flour). Or through fancy bookkeeping via paying €arbon off$et$

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  The Other Nick
September 7, 2022 12:06 pm

… or if one insist layperson, …

Consider if you will, that “person” literally means “of a male child.” Actually, the word “person” is derived from “personae” from a time when all-male actors would take on even female roles. Therefore, if the revisionists are allergic to the word “man,” they haven’t bought much by using “person.”

Ben Vorlich
September 7, 2022 7:32 am

Europe has shown the folly of a single source for anything particularly something vital. Especially when the supplier is not necessarily your friend and is definitely a competitor

In manufacturing I spent many years evaluating second source components.

Mike Meleen
September 7, 2022 8:03 am

This misportrays CO2 as a toxic, dirty substance. In reality, it is an organic, colorless, non-carcinogenic gas that has no toxic effects on humans until concentrations exceed at least 6 times the level in Earth’s atmosphere.

I was thinking there was also some important benefit to CO2 in the cycle of life, but like most people, I can’t seem to remember it.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Mike Meleen
September 7, 2022 10:06 am

10,000 ppm. That’s 25 times.

saveenergy
September 7, 2022 8:07 am

“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity,”
NO, NO, NO.
That’s what the wamisters want you to think/say but it ain’t so…
Water vapour ( H2O) is the primary ‘greenhouse gas’ emitted by human activity !!!

Last edited 27 days ago by saveenergy
Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  saveenergy
September 7, 2022 8:34 am

I also see hydrogen powered vehicles touted as “zero emissions” because they only emit water vapor.  The population at large just can’t seem to grasp basic, readily available science.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
September 7, 2022 10:04 am

They’ve been lied to.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
September 7, 2022 12:13 pm

It is a double whammy because not only is water vapor a more potent greenhouse gas, but oxidizing hydrogen will also increase the Heat Index in areas already dealing with the Urban Heat Island problem.

HotScot
Reply to  saveenergy
September 7, 2022 9:11 am

Human activity doesn’t emit H2O. There’s only so much water on the planet and it’s always been here.

John Bell
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 10:04 am

Many chem reactions produce C02, combustion being one, but not enough to matter in the big scheme of things.

MarkW
Reply to  John Bell
September 7, 2022 11:21 am

I believe most of the chemical reactions that created the organic molecules that make up fossil fuels, involved breaking apart oxygen molecules.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Bell
September 7, 2022 12:16 pm

Not globally, but locally, where the water vapor is being generated, the humidity will increase. Swamp coolers no longer work well in Phoenix (AZ) because the RH is higher than what it was in the 1950s.

HotScot
Reply to  John Bell
September 7, 2022 3:59 pm

I referred to H2O.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 11:13 am

Ever see a power plant cooling tower?  Humans do emit H2O, although I don’t really know how much it matters.  I remember a documentary about a paper mill that caused a regular fog over a highway that was blamed for many vehicle accidents.  The real question is how much of the Earth’s water is in the atmosphere vs. on the surface.  I’m sure the amount in the atmosphere can fluctuate considerably.

HotScot
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
September 7, 2022 4:02 pm

Try to think my comment through.

There is only a certain amount of H2O on the planet. It’s a fixed amount. We can liberate it, we can move it, we can boil and freeze it, but we can’t produce it. Ultimately, it goes back to where it’s most comfortable.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 6:19 pm

Nonsense. Collect some hydrogen, collect some oxygen, put it together under the proper conditions, you have produced H2O. My quibble was with your use of the word ’emit.’ That is to say, man heats liquid water, breaks it into a vapor, and releases it into the atmosphere. Maybe ’emit’ means something different to you?

MarkW
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
September 8, 2022 10:38 am

Where did you collect the hydrogen from? There aren’t any hydrogen mines and there is precious little in the atmosphere.

There are two main sources of hydrogen;
First breaking down water molecules.
Second you can get it by breaking down various hydro-carbons. However the hydro-carbons got their hydrogen by breaking down water molecules via photo-synthesis.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  HotScot
September 11, 2022 7:12 pm

The catalytic converter was designed to turn toxic Carbon Monoxide into harmless CO2 and WATER VAPOR.

So unless you don’t drive a gasoline powered car, human activity emits plenty oh H2O. Ditto for BREATHING.

Gunga Din
Reply to  saveenergy
September 7, 2022 3:00 pm

Imagine no Greenhouse gases
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Freezing all the day….

What’s wrong with greenhouse gases?
Along with the oceans and the Sun (other things also) they keep the Earth habitable.
Our planet has been “around the block” a few times.
It adapts. It compensates.
We’re fine. Whatever we do, the planet isn’t going to kill us all.
(Though there are some people who would be happy if a bunch of us died. Fewer people. Easier to control.)

HotScot
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 7, 2022 4:14 pm

One day the planet will kill us all, or we’ll kill ourselves. I suspect the former is most likely as we have been trying to kill one another since we crawled out the primordial soup.

What we do extremely well is adapt to conditions presented to us. I’d go so far as to say that wherever a species is confined to by its inability to adapt to other environments, mankind can also exist. Not too well yet in the deep oceans, but we’ll get there in time.

From the poles to the equator mankind has lived for extended periods of time (above water). Indeed, we can even survive in space for extended periods.

Whilst there are those with Malthusian desires, they are truly deranged and ill informed. The bigger and faster the worlds population has grown, the larger our steps forward in bettering our lives.

There is no evidence anywhere, ever, that a growing global population is detrimental to our species, in fact the complete opposite.

Malthusianism is the product of a small, sick, narcissistic mind.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
September 8, 2022 10:41 am

We have the technology to live below the water’s surface for extended periods of time. Nuclear subs do it for months at a time.

Old Retired Guy
September 7, 2022 8:26 am

I haven’t read the California Statute, but have they created a definition that no vehicle can meet? Or did they just outlaw ICE vehicles, ignoring reality?

Reply to  Old Retired Guy
September 7, 2022 12:13 pm

It is not really about vehicles. Our beloved Governor, one Gavin Newsom, wants to get elected President in 2024. This law is a stepping stone to that goal. Who cares that the stepping stone will be difficult to dismantle? Remember the Prohibition?

Mr.
September 7, 2022 8:40 am

The pathological obsession for the eradication of CO2 emissions from all human existence reminds me of the work of cosmetic surgeon Dr. Maxwell Maltz.

In his book Psycho-Cybernetics, Maltz described how many of his patients convinced themselves that they had deformed facial features that required radical corrective surgery, despite their features being quite normal and unoffensive in any way.

Maltz tried to convince these people that their concerns were unfounded, and he introduced psychologist colleagues to address these unfounded obsessions about facial deformities these patients vehemently expressed.

So, I’m thinking that “CO2 = pollution” requiring radical society-wide corrective action is also an unfounded obsession and is begging for psychological / psychiatric attention, just as Maltz identified in people who convinced themselves they had facial disfiguration.

HotScot
Reply to  Mr.
September 7, 2022 9:18 am

All that’s needed is for governments and the media to stop using terms like climate change, NetZero, global warming etc. and televising the loony fringe like extinction rebellion etc. and the whole idea will gradually subside.

People have short memories.

paul courtney
September 7, 2022 9:12 am

At this point, 43 comments and not one from our EV enthusiasts to say that the acceleration is the bees knees. They will not absorb negative news regarding EV.

HotScot
Reply to  paul courtney
September 7, 2022 9:50 am

They never mention cornering. The lump of battery EV’s have to lug around makes slowing down before a corner vital.

Even a modestly quick ICE will cane a similarly priced EV around the Nürburgring Nordschleife.

Just checked, not a single EV in the top 100 lap times.

Last edited 27 days ago by HotScot
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  HotScot
September 7, 2022 12:18 pm

In other words, EVs are only good on drag strips. How is their braking distance?

HotScot
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 7, 2022 3:36 pm

Likely not as good as ICE’s as there is still more weight to stop.

Reply to  paul courtney
September 7, 2022 9:50 am

Acceleration is the bees knees.
Zero to speeding ticket at high speed with an EV
It’s downhill from there.
But I’m old, so speeding is a past vice
Had more than enough speeding tickets
Now I drive slower than an old man with a walker

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 7, 2022 10:05 am

I always think old people should drive faster. After all they have less time left….

MarkW
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 7, 2022 11:26 am

I’m trying to remember how a tee-shirt I saw recently was phrased.
Something like

Don’t piss of old people
The older we get, the less of a deterrent life in prison is

HotScot
Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2022 3:37 pm

Close enough.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
September 7, 2022 12:20 pm

It is strange how young people, with their whole lives ahead of them, are typically impatient about everything. Those who are — in Mark Twain’s words — “Homeward Bound,” are inexplicably more patient.

Kit P
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 7, 2022 1:25 pm

The final straw was when I got sued by a CHP officer for a neck injury. Went by so fast that he hurt his neck turning his head.

My 2800 # classic Honda Del Sol is great fun on mountain roads with the roof off. After hitting 100 mph going up a hill with a truck lane I let off the accleator to coast back to 60 mph.

A county mounty came over the top of the hill and pulled me over. Asked me how fast I was going. Said I did not know because of the angle of the sun which was true. Asked if I was in a hurry. Said no which was also true.

I did not get a ticket. Suspect I was getting the old guy trying to enjoy like treatment.

Drove the Pacific coast snenic route this summer. Noctice a few Teslas, none seemed to be having fun.

Doonman
Reply to  paul courtney
September 7, 2022 9:59 am

The acceleration of EV’s are fantastic. They pass everything except the charging stations.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Doonman
September 7, 2022 12:22 pm

Like a pioneer crossing the desert, one has to refill the water barrels at every water hole because they never know when they will find another one.

Leslie MacMillan
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 7, 2022 4:08 pm

Steam locomotives too. But at least if you ran short of water, you could cut the train loose and leave it while you ran light to the next water tank, then come back for the train. Tied up the main line for a while if you weren’t near a siding.

MarkW
Reply to  paul courtney
September 7, 2022 11:27 am

Lead footing it, cuts range in both gas and electric power cars.

HotScot
Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2022 3:40 pm

I get around 40mpg in my Diesel VW Tiguan whether pootling around town or doing a 400 mile trip at 90mph on the motorway.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
September 8, 2022 10:46 am

How hard you accelerate makes a big difference in your over all mileage.
One instructor I had advised you to drive as if there was a raw egg on both your accelerator and brake pedals.

n.n
Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2022 6:51 pm

It’s not lead foot, it’s green foot. Some feet float, while others grow roots.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
September 11, 2022 8:07 pm

Yes, but lengthy trips at highway speeds INCREASE the range of ICE vehicles, which thereby provides the longest “range” when you need it the most.

Lengthy trips at highway speeds DECREASE the range of an EV vehicle, which thereby REDUCES the ALREADY INADEQUATE “range” when you need it the most.

So there’s that…

lee riffee
Reply to  paul courtney
September 7, 2022 12:31 pm

EVs remind me of two things – first are cheetahs. These cats are wickedly fast and can outpace any land animal. But, once the cheetah has rocketed across the savanna and captured its quarry, it must literally sit there for up to a half hour and cool off and rest before it can even take a bite. Also, it lacks the strength and weaponry to be able to defend its hard-won meal from other predators and scavengers.
Another analogy is the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. The hare runs circles around the tortoise, but he stops to rest. In the fable, the hare quits because he is so far ahead and doesn’t think he can lose, but in the updated EV version, the hare must stop and rest because he has no stamina and can’t go the distance without resting. We know how that one ends – there sits the hare, “charging up” for several hours while the tortoise ambles on past at a slow but steady pace on the way to the finish line.
In a nutshell there is no free lunch. In nature or in man-made things. Also the Little Mermaid. You get legs or your voice – but you don’t get both. Well, only in fairy tales do you get both….I guess many EV proponents believe in fairy tales….

John Hultquist
September 7, 2022 9:18 am

Can someone provide links to studies or reports documenting
the “transfer of environmental burdens” as discussed in the post.
I’ve seen photos and videos of activities that are used to indicate these burdens.
Are there independent and trusted sources of the illness and deaths?
It isn’t that I doubt these things – I just have not seen actual documentation such as I see in the USA for opioid-related deaths or traffic accidents, or gun deaths.

Doonman
September 7, 2022 9:26 am

California is toxic all by itself. The Salton Sea toxic dust and the Central Valley’s “Valley Fever” are just two examples, not to mention all the leftover toxic waste buried from Southern California’s 1920’s oil fields.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Doonman
September 7, 2022 12:24 pm

The Great Valley also has issues with selenium in the water.

HotScot
September 7, 2022 9:30 am

Volvo did a back to back, cradle to grave study of two identical models from the same production line, one ICE the other EV.

They found that the EV had to be run for 90,000 miles more than the ICE before it began to payback the CO2 deployed in its production.

HotScot
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 7, 2022 3:42 pm

Obliged.

September 7, 2022 9:39 am

Heavier EV cars and trucks = more tire wear = more particulate matter pollution from tire wear

Tom.1
September 7, 2022 9:42 am

I think the definition of a ZEV is as a point source.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom.1
September 7, 2022 11:32 am

I’ve always referred to them as ZEHV. Zero Emissions Here Vehicles

n.n
Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2022 6:48 pm

Shared/shifted responsibility has an em-pathetic appeal with “benefits”.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom.1
September 11, 2022 8:10 pm

In other words, a LIE BY OMISSION. Like much of the ‘climate’ propaganda.

michel
September 7, 2022 11:07 am

Off topic, but if you have access to the NYT read this story

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/07/world/europe/eu-logging-wood-pellets.html

Europe Is Sacrificing Its Ancient Forests for Energy
Governments bet billions on burning timber for green power. The Times went deep into one of the continent’s oldest woodlands to track the hidden cost.

Yet another example of how the nominally green movement is a greater threat to environment than any amount of CO2 emissions. And of how they insist on destroying valuable habitats and country for absolutely no contribution to their alleged objectives.

Because these trees once gone will not be replanted, and if they were, would not reabsorb the carbon their burning emits for near on 100 years.

Folly and wickedness. Increasingly the green movement just looks like another bad excuse for destroying the environment its claiming to save.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  michel
September 11, 2022 8:12 pm

For an even better example, look to rain forests being destroyed to plant “biofuel” crops.

Peta of Newark
September 7, 2022 11:51 am

Still no figure for the embedded energy in all the silicon chips that there are in there?
Not least for the battery managemnet where almost every individual cell needs/has modest little chip watching its temperature, voltage and how many amps are going in or out
Is that 7,000+ cells to make a Tesla battery
Then the vast intelligence needed to control the crates and on top of that the self-driving features, built in whether you need/use/pay for them, all that silicon hardware is still there

The energy used to make Large Scale Integration (LSI) chips is immense,
Not for melting the silicon, it’s the air-cleaning systems at the fabs that burn all the juice.
So as the chips get bigger while geometries shrink, that clean air (haha, gotta love it ain’t ya) the requirement for how clean the air inside the silicon fab simply skyrockets and so do the energy costs of getting it so so clean.

I went searching recently and everywhere seems extremely coy and shy of mentioning anything.
You can maybe understand as it is such a monster amount and thus will be ‘Commercially Sensitive’ The technology/costs of air cleaning will be a yes/no decider on the viability of entire fabrication facilities

But all that insanely clean air, in China certainly, will be being made via electricity generated in carbon spewing power plants.

PS I’m on Firefox 104.0.4 64bit on Windows 8.1 and never had any problem

Where Firefox falls down very badly is at MSN Outlook email. It simply stalls, burns 95%+ of processor grunt and goes nowhere fast.
Also at some UK banks the Ghostery adblocker stops them from displaying/functioning properly. Also places with embedded video

My go to back up browser is Opera – but it really does stall start-up performance, even if you don’t ever use it. Works much much better than whatever the Microsoft browser is these days
What it’s doing in there is a mystery but it’s certainly doing ‘something’

HotScot
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 7, 2022 3:49 pm

Shut down all your apps before shutting down your PC. If you leave everything running of course your PC will struggle to boot up.

I run Opera. Tried everything else and with a few minor niggles it works better than most. It was also one of the first to properly implement back up’s and favourites mirrored between machines. No problem with Outlook or One Drive. It even has a rudimentary VPN you can update with a payment. I use a PIA so don’t need it.

Rod
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 8, 2022 2:19 am

Peta, You are basically correct about the costs of moving the air in a fab. I spent many years as the top power engineer in a world-class fab here in the USA. We measured everything. However, while air movement may be the single biggest power hog, process cooling water is about the same scale (up to 4 – 1200 ton chillers for a 110000 SF clean room plus 250 & 150 HP pumps to move it). Plus to keep the machines (“tools”) at precise temps (so chips stay the same size) they heat/cool some tools simultaneously.

We NEVER changed the HEPA air filters; the more clogged they get, the better they filter. And as they get more clogged, more power is required. So if you examine a clean room’s power use over many years, the power curve slowly increases, all things being equal.

The plant used about as much power as a city of 15,000 people. Peak of ~23 MW. So yes, chips chips should be a big part of any power calc.

Peta of Newark
September 7, 2022 12:17 pm

This Enquiring Mind would like to know where all the money required to fuel these monstrosities is coming from.
Money is money and has to come from the profit made on digging/mining/growing/making processing of ‘something’ or doing some useful service.

Surely Shirley, won’t most of those ‘tasks’ involve the emission of CO2?

No matter – witness this and weep/laugh as appropriate depending your geographical/political location

edit to PS

Yet bizarrely, looking at Energy Numbers dot info right now, UK is sending 2,6GW to France, 0.9GW to Norway and 0.7GW to Belgium.

While burning nearly 19 of gas, 1.0GW of ‘Other’ (which I imagine to be diesel) and draining the pumped hydro at 1.6GW

This Is Crazy.
wtf is going on out there?

UK Electricity Prices.png
Last edited 27 days ago by Peta of Newark
Duane
September 7, 2022 1:07 pm

Everything that goes into every vehicle, and every product that exists on the planet today is mined somewhere. EVs are no more polluting in that respect than ICVs.

Where do you think all of that steel, plastics, aluminum, glass, upholstery, and everything else in a gas or diesel vehicle comes from? Unicorns?

Have you ever actually visited a mine – a steel mine, a bauxite mine, a coal mine, an oil field, and such? There is nothing that is clean or unpolluting associated with mining, or the processing of mined materials (whether to make commercial metals, or refined petroleum products, or even the stone and concrete that goes into building the roads you drive on and the house you live in. 

Nothing gets built without mined materials, no matter how it is powered or made including its fuel (coal, gas, gasoline, diesel, etc.). Civilization has never existed without mined materials, going back many thousands of years.

This is a silly straw man argument. Nobody has EVER argued that an EV is produced through immaculate conception or pixie dust. But EVs DON’T emit polluting gases. And to the extent that the electricity requires the use of mined materials, so do all ICVs, to the same or greater extent. Even bicycles, roller skates, and the shoes on your feet require the use of mined materials.

Last edited 27 days ago by Duane
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
September 7, 2022 8:27 pm

But EVs DON’T emit polluting gases.

That may be largely true. However, the electricity supplied to charge the batteries may emit “polluting gases” at the point of generation. So, it may be more accurate to say that the EVs emit their polluting gases at some distance from the vehicle.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 8, 2022 11:01 am

Duane either can’t or won’t understand that simple point. He’s so desperate to defend electric cars that he is willing to use any argument, no matter how disproven or illogical.

Bryan A
Reply to  Duane
September 7, 2022 8:45 pm

And how much additional mining will be required to remove and replace every existing ICE vehicle with Battery EV?

Hint over 2.6 Billion Cars, Trucks, Busses, Emergency Vehicles, and Train Engines using Gasoline and Diesel fuel travel on roads and rails all over the globe. All would require scrapping or extensive after market modification to become Battery EV compatible.

The UK alone would require 4 times the current GLOBAL copper mining just to replace their existing 32 million ICE vehicles.

The U.S. has 258 million gasoline and diesel powered vehicles and would require 32 times the current global copper production.

Then there is all the materials to create the batteries. Most Teslas have more than 7100 batteries in their battery packs. Replacing the 2+billion strong global fleet of FF cars will require 14.2 trillion 18650 batteries.

A single 70kWH battery weighs about 1000 lbs and contains about 65 kilos (145lbs) of lithium and requires mining 325 kilos of Lithium Carbonate. Replacing 2 billion cars with Battery EVs would require mining and processing 650 billion kilos of Lithium Carbonate

An inconceivable amount of mining is required to remove ICE vehicles and thereby Gasoline and Diesel powered transportation from the road and replace them with EVs

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
September 8, 2022 11:06 am

The only significant difference in construction between electric and ICE vehicles is the battery/motor vs gas tank/engine. Both types require a chassis, suspension, tires, etc. Though because it is heavier the electric will require stronger (and hence larger) chassis, suspension, tires, etc.

The iron for the engine was most likely recycled while the lithium for the battery had to be mined for each new battery made.

Rod
Reply to  Duane
September 8, 2022 12:08 am

Oh boy are you not seeing the forest for the trees. EV and ICV both need some common items (seats, doors, etc) BUT the batteries are vastly different. As I noted earlier, read “Hybrid Vehicles, Are They Worth It?” (Lave & MaClean, IEEE Spectrum, March 2001) where the authors did cradle to grave pollution analyses that not only included emissions, but also all sources including manufacturing, disposal, etc. Technology has no doubt changed, but their basic point is no doubt valid: EV total pollution was 6X ICE.

And, as myself and other commentators noted, EV are REFERRED EMISSION VEHICLES. They, via power plants, emit in SOMEONE ELSE’S BACKYARD.

Wake up and see the forest.

Last edited 26 days ago by Rod
Dave Andrews
Reply to  Duane
September 8, 2022 7:25 am

The IEA say to get the world to 200m – 250m EVs by 2030 would require 30 – 50 new lithium mines, 41 – 60 new nickel mines and 11 – 17 new cobalt mines. That’s up to 82 new mines for 200m EVs and 127 new mines for 250m EVS.

There are currently over 1.4 billion ICEVs in the world. Where are we going to find all the mines to replace them with EVs?

You may also be interested to know that a recent report for the EU Commission ‘Critical Raw Materials in Technologies and Sectors in the EU. A Foresight Study’ estimated there would only be between 140m and 220m EVs in the EU by net zero 2050 itself.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Andrews
September 8, 2022 11:09 am

There’s also the materials that are going to be needed to upgrade the electrical system to handle the increased demand from recharging all those batteries.
Copper and aluminum for the wiring. Iron for the towers. Iron and copper for all the transformers in all those substations plus the transformers in the distribution network.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Andrews
September 9, 2022 11:40 am

Mines are energy intensive: explosives to break up the rock, and diesel fuel to power the loaders and hauling trucks. The mills to process the ore typically are large users of electricity.

Just because we may need 11-17 new cobalt mines doesn’t mean that we can just build them. It is relatively rare compared to lithium and nickel, and there are other needs that will compete for what is available. The demand for cobalt-alloy high-speed steel tools for lathes and mills can be expected to increase to manufacture all the trucks and generators. Thus, the estimated future demand is probably on the low side.

Not Dan
Reply to  Dave Andrews
September 10, 2022 8:35 pm

And that’s the point Dave, not everyone will have a vehicle for private transport. The greens believe that their righteousness now will keep them in good stead in the future to drive whilst the rest of us walk, cycle, use public transport or horse and buggy for the country folk.
A society that has restricted movement has restricted freedom.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
September 8, 2022 11:00 am

Most of the steel that makes up cars is recycled.

Once again, Duane demonstrates that he can’t handle something as simple as ratios.

Way more material needs to be mined for each electric car than has to be mined for ICE cars.

Kit P
September 7, 2022 1:57 pm

About 30 years ago I learned how to do a LCA and other evaluations to reduce the impact of doing business because it seemed to be an upcoming field while nuclear was apparently fading away.

What I conclude is that some problems are political and politicians have no interest in solving them. They pick solutions that will fail because there is no penelaty for failure.

Turns out portecting the envorment is not a big problem. However, proving energy is. A small segment of workers makes it look easy in the US. When a Califonia govermnor makes it harder and the lights go out, he gets fired by the voters.

One of the results was new interest in BEV and HFCV. However, they still need even more energy.

Going to need more nuke and coal plants. That’s ok because NEPA EIS have a finding of no significnat enviromental impact (FONSEI)

2hotel9
September 7, 2022 3:33 pm

EVs are 100% coal powered. Solar and wind are failures, without coal, gas, hydro and nuclear there is no electricity.

Bob
September 7, 2022 3:56 pm

I hate liars and cheats, I don’t trust administrators, politicians or bureaucrats. Newsom is one of the worst.

James Allen
September 7, 2022 3:59 pm

Why do people argue about this? Nothing is “zero emissions” the regular, affordable and efficient cars we prefer to drive aren’t zero emissions either. It takes energy to mine steel, aluminum, petroleum, etc. When did this become a mystery? The problem with electric cars isn’t that people lie about how clean they are, it’s the fact that battery technology sucks when you stack it up to ICE powered vehicles. Until that changes, electric vehicles will be niche vehicles. Uncle Sam can try to convert us, but eventually, people will have enough of this nonsense and throw the idiots out. Yeah, they’ll just get replaced with new idiots, but they’ll know not to keep pushing this “zero emissions” BS on us. Most average people aren’t really that dumb. 

MarkW
Reply to  James Allen
September 8, 2022 11:11 am

You have to deal with all the arguments being made. There are a lot of people who actually do believe that electric cars produce no pollution.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
September 9, 2022 11:43 am

Yes, the old expression, “Out of sight, out of mind.” applies to naive advocates.

Gerard O'Dowd
September 7, 2022 4:52 pm

Richard Rhodes writes a short history of air pollution in Ch 18 Affection from the Smog in Energy A Human History (2018). He discusses the origination of the term and the microchemical analysis of large volumes (thirty thousand cubic feet) of air samples of Pasadena smog passed through a trap of liquid air by Arie Hagen-Smit an organic chemist at CalTech who was working on the chemical essence of pineapple Fragrance. He was hired by the chemist and inventor Arnold Beckmann to help the newly appointed air resources board chairman to clear up the confusion about the nature of LA smog.

Cooled to liquid air temperatures Arie Hagen-Smit’s isolation and analysis revealed the presence of a “couple of drops of a vile smelling dark brown liquid” which he reported to be saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons, the products of aerosolized oxidized hydrocarbons released from the surface evaporation of uncovered tanks and pond reservoirs of refined gasoline in place around LA county and released from the tailpipes of cars of (non combusted) raw gasoline vapor. Oxidized hydrocarbons had not been found in analyses of the smog afflicting other cities such as London’s Carbon soot coated SO2.

The history of Arie Hagen-Smit’s discovery sheds some light on the preoccupation of CARB and air pollution districts with LA smog in general and the State’s obsession with pollution from Fossil Fuels, and gasoline powered ICE’s in particular that dates from the California automobile boom in the post WWII years of the late 1940’s.

Richard Rhodes is one of America’s greatest historians and most versatile writers of atomic physics, 20th C science and technology in the US and USSR. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize winning The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986) and Dark Sun The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (1995). Very readable and engrossing accounts of the scientists, their experimental methods, engineering challenges and the rise of Big Science.

JBP
September 7, 2022 5:15 pm

They lie (anyone pushing crap like electric cars) and they know they lie, and they depend on others reacting as if they (politicians, the greenies, etc) might be wrong. The information that proves they are lying is already out there. Call them on their lies. Don’t say they are wrong; say they are lying. Because the only other explanation is ignorance, and ‘they’ are the experts.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  JBP
September 9, 2022 11:45 am

If you define lying as knowingly speaking an untruth, then Biden probably is not lying. He is the equivalent of someone who thinks that the Earth is flat.

Paul G
September 7, 2022 5:45 pm

test test test test from iMac Firefox.

goldminor
September 7, 2022 6:04 pm

Look at these insane budget numbers from California. The most important issues on this list would be water, and fighting fires, but they get the least funding at 5.5 billion. The other 3 items are climate related business which gets 28 billion.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  goldminor
September 12, 2022 8:23 am

And then they’ll have the gall to blame more acreage burned on…wait for it…

“Climate Change(TM)”

SMH!

Rod
September 7, 2022 9:39 pm

How true. You might find “Hybrid Vehicles, Are They Worth It?” (Lave & MaClean, IEEE Spectrum, March 2001) prescient. They warned about the massive pollution of pure EV vs. gas cars. At the time, I tried in vain to get the Sacramento Bee to report on this.

I’m a registered EE who practiced for decades in Calif. My specialty was power engineering for large industrial plants. Calling EV “ZEV” is, as James noted, a lie. In addition to all the front and back-end pollution he explicitly noted, since the generation mix is still mostly fossil fuels, concerning tail-pipe emissions, all EV are is REFERRED EMISSION VEHICLES, “REV”. They just refer their pollution to SOMEONE ELSE’S BACKYARD.

Last edited 27 days ago by Rod
n.n
Reply to  Rod
September 8, 2022 12:58 am

Shared/shifted responsibility paid forward through obfuscation and deceit.

Luigi
September 8, 2022 12:36 am

Let me just understand the logic: on one side they ask not to charge EVs because there’s shortage of current, but on the other side they want to ban gasoline vehicles? and people are voting them?

n.n
Reply to  Luigi
September 8, 2022 12:56 am

With the privilege of taking a siesta while the battery charges at relatively short intervals.

Eric Vieira
September 8, 2022 1:19 am

EV’s have no real advantage at all over Gas Vehicles. The break even is hit around some 100’000 miles of use. The reason they are pushed is that they’re so expensive that most people can’t afford them. In this way they’ll get the desired emissions reductions, by massively reducing the number of cars and other vehicles in circulation. As Marie Antoinette in modern times would say: Let them walk or ride bicycles …

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Eric Vieira
September 9, 2022 11:47 am

Not what I would call progress. We will probably never get our promised flying cars.

John Baglien
September 8, 2022 10:45 am

As clearly shown in this article, Californians who support the “Advanced Clean Car Rule II” are not true environmentalists but merely ultimate NIMBYists.

Alan
September 9, 2022 5:31 am

I had a Chevy Volt before they discontinued it. I called it my coal-powered car.
The energy to propel it came from US sources (coal and NG), rather than overseas oil (this was prior to Trump and us becoming energy independent).

Menno Van Leeuwen
September 9, 2022 7:14 am

The thing that bugs me the most, is how much extra CO2 is being produced by forcefully transitioning to this so-called zero emission strategy. I would think that setting up a completely new worldwide infrastructure in itself is bound to use an extreme amount of energy by itself. So if the whole CO2 narrative is as bad as they say it is, doomsday is neigh.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Menno Van Leeuwen
September 9, 2022 11:51 am

There is an old Japanese saying, “It is rare to find a man who speaks well who is trustworthy.” People who go into politics are too often motivated by the prospect of using the power to become rich. Also, their limited skill set prevents them from finding honest work.

Nora J Hamilton
September 9, 2022 4:24 pm

Mr. Agresti left out a critical point in his excellent article. C02 is not just “an innocuous gas” in the atmosphere. C02 necessary for the survival of all life on Earth. We are all carbon-based life forms. Without C02, we will all perish.

Michael Davison
September 10, 2022 10:31 pm

Excellent, clear, concise and very understandable to anyone who has a open mind – the problem is off course that the Global Warming/Climate Crisis/Earth is Doomed brigade have spent the last 50years proclaiming that unless we change to a non-industrial economy we are going to kill the “one planet”, of course this is just for Western consumption as the East knows that without Carbon based Energy, mass starvation/unemployment and the inevitable wars is “The Future”, so having invested all their credibility, there is no way that facts will change this nonsense.

Trebla
September 15, 2022 3:23 am

Electric cars produce more brake wear? Come on! Familiarize yourself with regenerative braking. I own an electric car and hardly ever need to use the friction brakes.