ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON COLLISION COURSE WITH REALITY

[PeteS in CA]

ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON COLLISION COURSE WITH REALITY

ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON COLLISION COURSE WITH REALITY

Some people, not all of them liberals, think that electric vehicles are the wave of the future, part of an inevitable “green” revolution. But the facts suggest otherwise. My friend Robert Bryce testified before a House committee yesterday on the subject of electric vehicles. Robert is one of the country’s most knowledgeable experts on energy, and I encourage you to read his entire testimony. Here are some highlights as summarized by him:

* EVs are cool. They are not new. The history of EVs is a century of failure tailgating failure. In 1911, the New York Times said that the electric car “has long been recognized as the ideal solution.” In 1990, the California Air Resources Board mandated 10% of car sales be zero-emission vehicles by 2003. Today, 31 years later, only about 6% of the cars in California have an electric plug.

* The average household income for EV buyers is about $140,000. That’s roughly two times the U.S. average. And yet, federal EV tax credits force low- and middle-income taxpayers to subsidize the Benz and Beemer crowd.

* Lower-income Americans are facing huge electric rate increases for grid upgrades to accommodate EVs even though they will probably never own one.
...
* I also talked about resilience, saying “Electrifying everything is the opposite of anti-fragile. Electrifying transportation will put more of our energy eggs in one basket. It will make the grid an even-bigger target for terrorists, cyberthieves, or bad actors. It will reduce resilience and reliability in case of a prolonged grid failure due to natural disaster, equipment failure, or human error.”

I also highlighted the myriad supply-chain problems with EVs. Citing work done by the Natural History Museum in London, I said that electrifying half of the U.S. motor vehicle fleet would require in rough terms:

* 9 times the world’s current cobalt production
* 4 times global neodymium output
* 3 times global lithium production
* 2 times world copper production

[rustynail]

* 9 times the world’s current cobalt production
* 4 times global neodymium output
* 3 times global lithium production
* 2 times world copper production
Cold Hard facts.

[dfwgator]

It's just all a ruse to get rid of gas-powered cars and force us into mass public transportation.  They know the infrastructure will never support EVs.

[Lando Lincoln]

[Bigun]

It's just all a ruse to get rid of gas-powered cars and force us into mass public transportation.  They know the infrastructure will never support EVs.

If they don't know that they know nothing at all.

[christian]

Whatever could be wrong with utopian answers to the problems brought to us by those that made the problems?  Ask a Texan how the windgenerators solved our problems with energy last winter. It will be the same or worse with electric cars.  Electric power WILL skyrocket, especially as consumption to charge cars escalates and more and more nuclear power plants are shutdown permanently.  Unreliable and unstable wind Electricity will create endless blackout crisis's democrats will milk to the citizens desolate society and sky high prices.  Our enemies will have more and more dams, nuclear power plants, and coal to run our economy into the ground, making us utterly noncompetitive to the Communists and muslim nations.  Democrats will demand non-judgmentalism for them, and turn their backs on us, much like they already have.

[Smokin Joe]

It's just all a ruse to get rid of gas-powered cars and force us into mass public transportation.  They know the infrastructure will never support EVs.

Especially those nasty hicks (who cling to their bibles and guns) from flyover country. Incidentally, there is no mass transit in most of that area, and in parts of it it gets too cold to walk far and live.

[catfish1957]

After EV's become ubiquitous, any bets on pedestrian fatalities of those who failed to hear the vehicle coming?

[Elderberry]

POWERLINE Posted on July 1, 2021 by John Hinderaker in Energy Policy

Electric Vehicles On Collision Course With Reality

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/electric-vehicles-on-collision-course-with-reality-2.php?tsize=large

[Elderberry]

TESTIMONYBEFORE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS

House Select Committeeon the Climate Crisis

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS FOR SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/CN/CN00/20210630/112853/HHRG-117-CN00-Wstate-BryceR-20210630.pdf

ROBERT BRYCE  Visiting fellow, The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity  June 30, 2021


CONCLUSION

In summary, efforts to decarbonize transportation are laudable. But as author Vaclav Smil has rightly pointed out, energy transitions “are protracted affairs” that occur over decades, not years.53 Before allocating billions of dollars on infrastructure and more subsidies for EVs, policymakers must have frank and transparent discussions about how efforts to decarbonize transportation will impact lowand middle-income Americans, many of whom are already struggling to pay their energy bills. Higher energy costs are a form of regressive taxation. At a time when policymakers are grappling with inequality and social justice issues, they must be careful not to impose regressive policies that will exacerbate inequality.

 Over the past century, the American transportationnetworkhas flourished because market forces were allowed to provide the best solutions. Congress should not be picking winners in the transportation market. If EVs are, in fact,better than conventional vehicles, then policymakers should let consumers drive their adoption.

[GtHawk]

Especially those nasty hicks (who cling to their bibles and guns) from flyover country. Incidentally, there is no mass transit in most of that area, and in parts of it it gets too cold to walk far and live.

Well you hillbilly's that cling to Bibles and Guns, no doubt likker too, will just have to go a horseback or wagon if you refuse to eat from the apple of daddy gubmint socialism.

[LMAO]

It doesn’t matter because progressives never let reality get in the way of their ideas

[Smokin Joe]

After EV's become ubiquitous, any bets on pedestrian fatalities of those who failed to hear the vehicle coming?

That has already been a problem with hybrids.

[Smokin Joe]

Well you hillbilly's that cling to Bibles and Guns, no doubt likker too, will just have to go a horseback or wagon if you refuse to eat from the apple of daddy gubmint socialism.

Nah. We'll scrounge up some crude and brew up our own, or buy a flex fuel beater and make nasty shine.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

TESTIMONYBEFORE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS

House Select Committeeon the Climate Crisis

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS FOR SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/CN/CN00/20210630/112853/HHRG-117-CN00-Wstate-BryceR-20210630.pdf

ROBERT BRYCE  Visiting fellow, The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity  June 30, 2021


CONCLUSION

In summary, efforts to decarbonize transportation are laudable. But as author Vaclav Smil has rightly pointed out, energy transitions “are protracted affairs” that occur over decades, not years.53 Before allocating billions of dollars on infrastructure and more subsidies for EVs, policymakers must have frank and transparent discussions about how efforts to decarbonize transportation will impact lowand middle-income Americans, many of whom are already struggling to pay their energy bills. Higher energy costs are a form of regressive taxation. At a time when policymakers are grappling with inequality and social justice issues, they must be careful not to impose regressive policies that will exacerbate inequality.

 Over the past century, the American transportationnetworkhas flourished because market forces were allowed to provide the best solutions. Congress should not be picking winners in the transportation market. If EVs are, in fact,better than conventional vehicles, then policymakers should let consumers drive their adoption.

why is it laudable to get rid of carbon?

Plants require it and we all starve to death if it disappears.

[Slide Rule]

why is it laudable to get rid of carbon?

Plants require it and we all starve to death if it disappears.

It is always smart to ask all the obvious questions.

Something an old time engineer or designer would ask.

What would Edison's question be?

I drove an electric car 50+ years ago.

It was a marketing gimmick.

Nothing has changed.

I had do edit my years from 30 to 50.

[Elderberry]

why is it laudable to get rid of carbon?

Plants require it and we all starve to death if it disappears.

Not only will we all starve to death, if carbon is truly eliminated, all life on earth would have to cease to exist. All life on earth is carbon based.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Toyota Warns (Again) About Electrifying All Autos. Is Anyone Listening?

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/board,110.0.html

[catfish1957]

Toyota Warns (Again) About Electrifying All Autos. Is Anyone Listening?

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/board,110.0.html

Got to hand it Toyota, they are sharing a warning, that if kept to themselves will/would  give them a significant competitive advantage over all the idiotic woke car makers.

[bilo]

why is it laudable to get rid of carbon?

Plants require it and we all starve to death if it disappears.

Thank You!

It's great to see someone who sees past the fear peddling. If anything we have a carbon famine in the world. The more carbon in the atmosphere the better plants grow and more species of plants thrive. Also, more carbon means less drought because plants don't release as much water vapor into the atmosphere as they capture carbon as a result more moisture remains in the ground, thus less drought.

Just a little curiosity will inform people that global warming is nothing to fear and carbon is not a deadly threat.

[Smokin Joe]

Thank You!

It's great to see someone who sees past the fear peddling. If anything we have a carbon famine in the world. The more carbon in the atmosphere the better plants grow and more species of plants thrive. Also, more carbon means less drought because plants don't release as much water vapor into the atmosphere as they capture carbon as a result more moisture remains in the ground, thus less drought.

Just a little curiosity will inform people that global warming is nothing to fear and carbon is not a deadly threat.

I'm hung up on an even more basic question.

How do they know what the right temperature for the planet is? We might be a few degrees short of optimum, even now.

Real estate values are no basis for deciding the fate of a planet wide ecosystem.

[PeteS in CA]

I'm hung up on an even more basic question.

How do they know what the right temperature for the planet is? We might be a few degrees short of optimum, even now.
...

And why the ASSumption that Earth's climate is static?

As I've been pointing out for years, thermometers with useful resolution have not been around long enough to have a meaningful temperature profile for ANY single location on Earth. Further, the large number and extensive geographic coverage of weather stations  necessary for a meaningful profile of temperatures all over the Earth has been in existence for a century or so at most, and probably for only a few decades.

That's a verbose way of saying, "Mankind does not have the data necessary to support claims of any kind about global climate."

[240B]

That's a verbose way of saying, "Mankind does not have the data necessary to support claims of any kind about global climate."

Yes but we do have that data.
The climate has always fluctuated since the beginning of time.
We have ice age ... and then warming ... and so on ...
The Sun will ebb and flow, volcanos happen here and there.
Trying to 'control' the Global Temperature is about the most stupid thing I have ever heard of in my life.
It is more about 'ego' than anything else. These goobers are declaring that they themselves are more powerful than the Earth and Sun.
They control the weather! They outlive anyone! They are the Gods of the Universe. 

[bilo]

I'm hung up on an even more basic question.

How do they know what the right temperature for the planet is? We might be a few degrees short of optimum, even now.

Real estate values are no basis for deciding the fate of a planet wide ecosystem.

From our perspective as long as it doesn't warm past the point where we can survive.

The idea that humans can control the temperature of the planet is silly. The sun, water vapor, the tilt of the earth, the rotation of the earth all play such a huge role we can only impact the climate on the very fringe. We should focus our energy on things we can impact such as pollution.

[bilo]

And why the ASSumption that Earth's climate is static?

As I've been pointing out for years, thermometers with useful resolution have not been around long enough to have a meaningful temperature profile for ANY single location on Earth. Further, the large number and extensive geographic coverage of weather stations  necessary for a meaningful profile of temperatures all over the Earth has been in existence for a century or so at most, and probably for only a few decades.

That's a verbose way of saying, "Mankind does not have the data necessary to support claims of any kind about global climate."

I will disagree with you to some extent. We do have the ability to look back and determine carbon levels in the atmosphere and temperature of the planet going back 100's of millions of years. For example we do know that during the Cambrian explosion (incredible numbers of species developed) that the planet was much warmer and carbon dioxide was more than 10 times higher than today.