Unsustainability

84
5050
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One of the interesting things about this hard-push to power everything – especially cars – electrically is that a critical material (lithium) isn’t renewable and for that reason there’s less incentive to recycle the box that contained it.

That is to say, the EV’s enormous battery pack.

People are used to recycling lead-acid batteries – the ones that are a fraction of the size of an EV’s battery pack and used to start the engine that propels a non-electric car. These can be recycled – or rather, there is incentive to recycle them because the lead isn’t used up and can be recycled. But the lithium in an electric car’s lithium-ion battery pack is gone once consumed. This means it will take getting more of it from the environment to make another EV lithium-ion battery pack.

Think about that.

We are told – we are lectured, endlessly – about the necessity of “sustainability.” But what is “sustainable” about using up scarce, hard-to-get materials that cannot be replaced except by extracting, refining and manufacturing more of the same stuff?

Of which there is by dint of that less stuff.

As well as more damage done to the “environment”?

Ever seen a lithium leaching field?

“Environmentalists” do not think about that, apparently. Or – rather – the people pushing “environmentalism” do not want you to. What they want is for you to feel that you are on-board with doing what they say is . . . “sustainable.”

But when the lithium runs out – or becomes unsustainably expensive, due to their not being enough of it to make 1,000-plus pounds each electric battery packs for all those electric  cars they say will replace our cars at a cost people of modest means can afford, there will be only a few electric cars – available for purchase by the handful of people who may still be able to afford the far-from-modest cost.

Perhaps that is what’s really meant by “sustainable.”

The trend toward unsustainability is becoming obvious. Most of the newest EVs have starting prices over $40,000 (viz, the $43,190 to start 2023 Nissan Ariya; the $59,290 2023 Genesis GV60; the $61,795 Cadillac Lyriq; the various $70k-plus Rivians) and that is why the average price paid for a new car last year rose to nearly $50,000. It is “electrification” that’s pushed the average price paid for a new car up by almost $15,000 over the course of about three years.

This trend will wax rather than wane precisely because there isn’t enough lithium to sustain the fiction of mass-affordable EVs.

Most obnoxious, however, is that most of this unsustainability is a consequence of the emphasis upon gratuitous performance – the much-touted (and very true) ability of these EVs to accelerate very quickly.

And “very” hardly covers it.

The ’23 GV60, for instance, can get to 60 in 3.7 seconds. This is extremely quick. Almost twice as quick as most of the “gas guzzling” V8 muscle car of the ’60s and ’70s. The difference being the EV guzzles power – and burns up the lithium necessary to store it.

This raises what ought to be an obvious objection – if  “sustainability” for the sake of “the environment” is truly the reasons for this EV push. If it is necessary to transition to battery-powered devices  for those reasons, how can such gratuitous wastefulness of resources and energy be tolerated? (To say nothing of the  gratuitous “emissions” – of the “pollutant” that does not foul the air or hurt “the environment.”) 

The Earth-rape that’s necessary to manufacture one extremely quick two-ton-plus EV such as the GV60 could have been used to make two or maybe even three not-so-speedy but far more sustainable A to B half-ton EVs that didn’t need to burn as much power and didn’t to burn through so much lithium to store it.

These wouldn’t be exciting, of course. But they would be a lot more . .  sustainable.

Much better for “the environment,” too.

The problem there, of course, is that the people who have $40,000-plus to spend on an electric car do not want to drive a slow, unexciting and modest car. It is also very hard to persuade most people to give up a non-electric car that’s more practical as well as less expensive for the sake of one that’s more expensive and less practical that’s also slower.

Hence all the gratuitous power and speed.

Which also serves to cover up the fact that “battery technology” has not “advanced” meaningfully in that it still takes a battery that weighs a third as much as most cars to store the energy equivalent (and deliver the range) of half a tank of gas.

Or less.

Elon Musk’s evil insight was that “electrification” could be sold – in the name of “sustainability” – to people who want to pretend they care about that so long as it doesn’t cramp their style. The Climate Change Cultists were soothed by assurances that they wouldn’t be driving around in electrified Chevettes that got them there, but not quickly and without any bragging rights . . . other than the fatuity of “sustainability.”

And never mind the eight-year-olds clawing (literally, as by hand) cobalt out of open pit mines in the – cough – “Democratic” Republic of Congo. The good news – such as it is – is that cobalt is at least recyclable.

The kids clawing it out of the ground will no doubt be pleased to hear about that.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!

 

 

84 COMMENTS

  1. ” Let’s kill all the cows to save the planet” Al of the Gore, climate prophet. Al Gore said at the latest WEF conference that the oceans were boiling and “the situation is more dire than people realize and claimed the current output of greenhouse gases is sending heat into the atmosphere that is equivalent to ‘600,000 Hiroshima’ bombs ever day.”

    ——————-

    Climate lockdowns are not just coming, they are here:

    Climate Depot: Climate Lockdowns Begin: France bans short-haul flights ‘to cut carbon emissions’ – You Will Go Nowhere & Be Happy

    —————

    Have you figured out yet that when (((they))) say zero carbon it means your extinction? All life uses massive carbon, so stopping the carbon cycle is stopping life in it’s tracks. I am not sure what will kill us quicker, Bill Gates spraying the atmosphere to obscure the sun, or killing cows – the basis of our agriculture and food supply.

    We are most definitely in a dire situation – the political reaction to the myth of climate change could kill us all. And what drives this myth, the core belief, is that CO2 is causing warming which is 100% unproven and not happening. Temperatures are not in lockstep with rising CO2, and even the very charts we use to measure CO2 are in question:

    https://electroverse.info/co2-400ppm-in-the-1940s-cloud-albedo-controls-earths-climate-wikipedia-deletes/

    And even more damning is that NASA put up a special satellite to measure how CO2 increases were warming the planet – and this satellite called OCO measure cooling where CO2 was concentrated – which is exactly the opposite of the claim of the global warming theorists.

    (based on the double bonds of Oxygen=Carbon=Oxygen molecule)

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=CO2+molecule+diagram&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

    What the dunces failed to figure is that incoming solar radiation is absorbed by CO2 then immediately re-emitted in all directions – sending some radiation back to space. Thus increasing upper atmosphere CO2 makes the earth cool.

    And the dunces failed to figure that CO2 trapping heat also means that CO2 slows radiation coming down as well as up – and the net result is a wash – that the greenhouse theory is bunk. Water vapor (clouds) reflect heat into space. H20 is 96% global warming gas.

    And the dunces failed to understand that all the oil and coal and natural gas we burn to drive and keep warm, radiates out to space at night. Humans have burned over a trillion barrels of oil thus far and every watt of that heat has gone into space and is lost forever.

    And what the dunces fail to understand is that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does nothing to stop earth from cooling at night. So in a place like Arizona, which gets intense direct cloudless sunlight, will lose it’s heat at night regardless of CO2 levels – and thus there is no cumulative effect. And in fact the earth would freeze into a ball of ice in days if the sun went out – which means the sun is driving the temperature not CO2.

    Climate lockdowns are on par with dark age witch burnings – cultural mass insanity. Blaming farting cows for climate is the height of lunacy, at one time a hundred million buffalo were all farting and they never caused global warming – buffalo barely survived the winters – and in fact even today many buffalo freeze to death. The fact is 420 ppm CO2 does not stop buffalo and cows from freezing to death.

    Think people think. If I started a huge barn fire in Canada in the middle of winter, once the fire goes out, what would the temperature be? Exactly what it was before I started the fire. Why? Because the heat radiates into space and does not accumulate. Burning fossil fuels does not heat the earth, CO2 does not trap that heat, the whole theory is utterly ridiculous.

    And to put it into perspective, just one day of sun’s radiation on earth is so huge it dwarfs all of human fossil fuel burnings for years. Human energy use is so small compared to the sun, that the climate does not even notice.

    • You are spot on Yukon. Its all about, and has always been about the sun. This Co2 mythology is such pure speculative fiction, it boggles the mind. A fairy tale that falls apart with a simple scratch of the surface. The truth is easily revealed to anyone without a blinding hatred of civilization and humanity.

      The part about cow farts is hilarious. Whats the agenda behind it? Feudalism seems like the end goal. Cant have anyone living apart from society, left alone to grow their own food and pursue happiness. No way. In (((their minds))) one size fits all, and we should just be grateful for their limitless well of wisdom. Thing is, they aren’t smart people. I saw a recent article somewhere that showed how lab grown ‘meat’ is, at its core the same type of fraud as Eee Veees. The inputs required to produce this nasty ‘meat’ far exceeds cows and their farts. They acknowledge something like 2-1, which probably means its more like 3, or 4-1. Funny how they always conveniently down play the role fossil fuels when its something they want.

      More people are waking up to the scam that is the green movement. Hope it doesn’t take 3-4 years like it did for the LGBTQ+P agenda. Its all about money and power, and those who wield it against humanity. I wouldn’t want to be them or anywhere near them once Mr Apocalypse comes calling.

    • Even if CO2 did cause some warming, which of course it doesn’t, the very notion that some edict or regulation can stop a forever changing climate from ever changing again is absurd. Which is why it had to be changed from “global warming” to “climate change”, because they don’t have a clue which way it’s going, warmer or colder, and none of their predictions have come true. NONE. For all they pretend to know, we should all be burning tires to warm it up.

    • Aaah yes, Al Gore. I cannot remember which commentator (maybe Rush Limbaugh?) it was, called him a Man Bear Pig. How fitting and appropriate. This is same fool who shilled for years that the coast lines of the U.S. would be underwater by the year 2000. Whoops, that did not happen, and if it were such a end-of-the-world concern, why did Barack Obama and Big Mike buy a multi-million dollar mansion right on the Atlantic Ocean if it were such an issue? This same Gore fool who claimed to have invented the Internet? Please. The only hot air and “global warming” I see is coming out of his mouth and his a**

  2. Oh man, this isn’t lithium related, but another way to make cars too annoying to drive.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/31/aeb-braking-system-rule-nhtsa/70273783007/

    NHTSA is “considering” mandating automatic emergency braking. Whenever they “consider”, it’s a done deal, naturally.

    It sounds great in principle, but in practice, it panic brakes randomly. Our 2016 Subaru Outback has such a system from MobilEye and we’ve done several dangerous panic stops when it’s gotten scared of shadows or sun shining into its cameras. Now, all cars will be graced with such wonders.

    • Do these fools realize how many accidents and deaths that could cause up here during the Winter months, on our snowy, icy roads? Here you are, doing fine driving on the snowy roads you know how to navigate, only to have a damned squirrel run out in front of you? No problem, I run rocky the squirrely right over without stopping. And laugh my head off while doing so. But instead, to have the vehicle slam on the brakes without warning? What if I end up hitting someone? Or end up sliding into the other lane and end up dead because there was a truck traveling in the opposite direction? Is it my fault, or can I sue the stupid fools who thought this was a great idea (if I live)? And then again, duct tape is a fine product. Maybe someone can figure out a way to block the MobilEye and still drive…..

    • Hi OL,

      It’s already de facto standard equipment in most new cars, unfortunately. I can’t think of a single new vehicle I’ve test driven in the past year that has not had it.

      • Thankfully, in this new, ’22 Camry, I have been able to shut the automatic braking (and steering) off, and have not had any problems since then. No over riding my driving or braking, nothing. I have had it shill at me, with a bright red colour flashing at me once or twice, scaring the ever loving daylights out of me, because I was not expecting it, and it “thought” I was going to run into the back of something. You know, I was busy paying attention to driving and all. Still fishing for that clutch pedal though…..that old habit may never die. I just wish we (the actual consumer/purchaser) could be the ones to chose what WE want in a vehicle. Then again, the goal always was to get all of us out of them and walking everywhere…

  3. Eric, I’m usually on board with everything you say, however, I think you are a bit mistaken about lithium. Yes, the leeching fields are awful, and the cheapest lithium comes from places which don’t care about polluting their land with chemicals, but is you overlook that, the rest isn’t so bad.

    An EV battery doesn’t contain all that much lithium, less than 20lb in something like a Tesla. It contains more cobalt and manganese, which are even more annoying to get. Lithium is extremely common in the earth’s crust, one of the most common elements, in fact, it’s just that there isn’t very much of it in any one place, hence, the leech fields.

    Lithium batteries are recyclable, but the industry around recycling them is quite young. For example, Redwood Materials (https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/) is working out the processes for salvaging lithium from all kinds of lithium cells, and it’s looking quite good.

    So, what is going to happen is that we’re going to rape the earth for a while until there is enough lithium available for all concurrent usage, but then, as batteries wear out, we’re going to recycle, because it’s cheaper and cleaner than leech fields, so the economics of it will nudge people towards recycling.

    And please, don’t anyone misconstrue this as me accepting EV mandates, or ICE bans, it’s just that this lithium disaster isn’t a good talking point against such things, because it can be refuted fairly easily.

    • Hi, OL, and all here,

      The Wikipedia article:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium
      is actually quite informative, for anyone who cares to read it, and it contains hyperlinks to many other very interesting articles on related topics, including Li ion batteries, for those so inclined.

      I agree with your conclusions.

      • ‘Leeches are a type of blood sucking animal.’ — Adi Heidler

        And Ur-leeches are axiomatically defined as the 535 members of Clowngress.

        Now watch J-Yel borrow a cool trillion over the next few weeks.

        Party like it’s 1999 … till the music’s over.

  4. This is a very good article that will be among the 20 climate and energy related articles I recommend on my blog tomorrow. I even liked the EP comment on climate change — it IS nothing more than a prediction. I would like to add the fact that the prediction of a coming global warming crisis has been wrong since being defined numerically in 1979.

    As the official chief heckler here, I would not be doing my job of annoying the writer unless I found at least one line to nitpick. And I have.

    The claim that:
    “electrification” that’s pushed the average price paid for a new car up by almost $15,000 over the course of about three years.”

    The first problem with that claim is electric vehicles are a small percentage of automobile sales. Such a small percentage of sales in past years can not push up the average price by $15,000. So what else is involved? The past article “Scanned by Your Car” has some answers:

    The manufacturers retail sales price for ICE and hybrid vehicles has been increasing much faster than the consumer price index for automobiles, for one main reason: The vehicles include more features that everyone must pay for.

    Consider the chart at the link below that I used on the home page of my former Economic Logic Blog, showing the MSRP for the popular Ford ICE F150 and Toyota ICE Camry versus the US consumer price index for new automobiles that does NOT consider the cost increase for added standard features to be an actual price increase for the CPI. These CPI adjustments are called hedonic quality adjustments — I used to call them CPI Baloney Adjustments.

    https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2023/06/off-topic-consumer-price-index-for.html

  5. There are only two varieties of people in the world who believe that the solution to the non-existent problem of carbon dioxide emissions is to drive heavier vehicles which ultimately require the use of more< energy: Politicians, and morons. Of course, most of the politicians don’t actually believe that; they just use it as an excuse to further a political agenda, while the morons do actually believe, having been duped by the politicians and their mouthpieces, the media and the schools.

    The truly terrifying thing is that so few in this world today possess even the most basic logic to realize such an obvious con. We have entered into a new dark, dark period from which no light can be seen- and what sparks of light still exist (like this site) are furiously being assaulted by those seeking to extinquish any such light via censorship, de-listing, and probably soon, criminalization.

  6. “ Ever seen a lithium leaching field? “

    Close, same effect, potash ponds below Dead Horse Point State Park near Moab, UT

    Leaching ponds are really ugly disgusting things to see. Pictures show what it is, but seeing in person really makes an impact. Sparkey is no eco cultist but these are nasty. I’m all in for a clean environment realizing mining and related activities are needed but why add to the mess with needless lithium processing? The climate cultists don’t want to address the mess do they.

    Also the eco damage done to fragile deserts for solar electric farms isn’t mentioned either, article I read discussed the underground system of desert plants / fungals destroyed by installing these farms. Hypocrites “petro bad, solar good!”

    • >Leaching ponds are really ugly disgusting things to see.
      So is the Great Salt Lake, IMO.
      But, without the (presumed, former) Bonneville Leach Fields we would not have the Bonneville Salt Flats, which are a Good Thing, for those who like speed. 🙂

  7. As the bans on ICE vehicles are getting put in the calls that BEVs are environmentally harmful (from the usual voices that want to control our lives) is starting. The goal is that we won’t be motoring. It’s clearer than ever now.

    Also, lacking anything else to complain about the newest attack is on…. tire dust. Yes, they want to go after tire dust now. The absurdities rise and the real goal becomes clear to the blind.

  8. It ain’t nothing like trying to be clean and green. Ain’t nothing about being tech savvy and having the coolest ride around.

    Nobody cares if you have a nice car, theirs is nicer and even better.

    Bombardier up in Canada will keep cobbling together a few private/business jets each year. Bombardier builds jets to do one thing specifically, make money. They have the know how, the jets can fly.

    Jets need jet fuel to fly, nobody cares how much, just as long as the plane goes and flies.

    Fuel in the tanks have to have a greater capacity than a car’s gas tank, the plane will crash or not even get off the ground if there is not enough fuel to make it happen.

    The Greens in Germany take long vacations and use jet travel to hang out in Thailand for 30 days or so. They’re profligate hypocrites, nobody cares. They do it for the money too, nothing else.

    A Boeing Dreamliner has a fuel capacity 33,528 gallons, or 1000 33 gallon tank fill-ups in your Dodge pickup truck. 290 passengers versus 1000 drivers driving where they want to go, maybe 1000 more with a passenger. 33x20x1000 equals 660,000 miles traveled.

    Trumps the Dreamliner by a country mile.

    And you’re supposed to drive electric because if you don’t, you are just plain greedy and deserve not one thing. You should be ashamed of yourself if you even think about an engine that uses fuels. Good gosh, everything you do is a waste, just stop.

    You should feel guilty because you undoubtedly are.

    Never mind the gaslighting, don’t pay any attention there.

    Just stop thinking, you’ll be better off.

    • Airlines are scrambling to be the first to transition to “sustainable” fuels. So far it’s all press releases and hype because there’s no way GE is going to recertify anything going into their fuel rail other than JET-A. Not to mention the FAA.

      Talk to Lycoming about unleaded gas. Leaded fuel is still the only approved fuel for piston engines despite it being illegal to sell in California. So does everyone just fill up in Nevada? Nope. Somehow airports aren’t part of CA.

      • >Leaded fuel is still the only approved fuel for piston engines despite it being illegal to sell in California.

        Hi, RK,
        Do you know where it is made?
        I know it is *not* made at Chevron El Segundo, because I decommissioned the TEL facility there in the early 1990s.

  9. CO2 and temperature records being fudged? Tony Heller says NASA is manufacturing false temperature data:

    https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-the-us-temperature-record/

    In 2017, Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller (N&Z) published a paper on their work to identify an empirical model for planetary temperatures (“New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model”).[1]

    Nikolov and Zeller showed that the surface temperature of a hard surfaced planet is dependent on the atmospheric pressure not the composition of gases.

    Which blows the CO2 narrative to pieces.

    • NASA, manufacturing false data? But surely “going to the Moon” was real, right? 😉 (Hey, Buzzed Aldrin and that skeptical astronaut who conveniently died, and all, can’t be wrong… :D)

    • I fully expect that they lie about temperatures to support their bullshit CO2 narrative. They lied writ large about a certain “pandemic.” Why should this be any different?

      • Hi Mister,

        The problem (well, one of them) with “climate change” is it’s based on predictions – not certainties. Predictions based upon assumptions that may be false or over-stated and almost certainly are both. Yet we are supposed to accept massive changes in our material well-being (for the worse) to assuage the fears of people who believe… does it sound familiar?

        • There are many foundational problems with the climate change nonsense. Here are a few:

          1. Nobody knows what the state of the climate would otherwise be absent the condemned human activity. Thus, how can one measure the difference? Determining causation on such a grand scale is a fool’s errand, as there’s a giant ball of nuclear fusion in the sky, which we know very little about and is very hot. The sun’s changes and cycles may be the primary determining factor here. In any event, there are likely an infinite number of variables to consider. Humans are incapable of identifying and/or isolating all of them.

          2. Most species on earth impact the earth in some way. Some impacts can be deleterious and some beneficial. Oftentimes it’s unclear which is which or they may be mixed. A shipwreck sure makes a nice artificial reef for certain aquatic wildlife to thrive. Is that helpful to other ocean species though? Does it also have a negative effect that we’re not aware of, can’t see or can’t appreciate?

          3. Nobody knows what the optimal state of earth’s climate is in the first place. If the condemned human activity is actually causing climate change (compared to what it would otherwise be), how do we know it’s not beneficial to all or most species? Which species are most important?

          4. Predictions over the past 50 years appear to be incredibly wrong. I recall seeing a documentary with Leonard Nimoy in which they were certain that earth was headed for an ice age (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRqr9_jw5I). I also recall many predictions that we’d all be doomed years ago by “global warming.” The predictions seem to be wholly inconsistent with the actual facts, thus they lie and manufacture facts to fit their their now-non-committal “climate change” narrative.

          It appears to me to be nothing but a manufactured pretext to gain money and power. In the absence of evidence of causation (a virtual impossibility), it seems to me that the prudent course of action is conservation and efficiency. Actual free markets tend to be congruent with these principals.

        • Global warming is a monumental hoax based on a disproved theory and fudged data. CO2 has never driven temperatures on earth. I am alarmed that with this false narrative they are culling cows to meet zero carbon.

          Irish Times: “Up to 65,000 dairy cows a year could be culled as the Government moves to bring the agriculture sector in line with climate targets, according to a report by the Irish Independent.”

          Thinking about it, how are cows a threat to the planet? They are not. In no way real or imagined can cows threaten earth’s climate, but because of this god damned narrative spewed out by the whore media, politicians are actually going to get humans to cull their herds – so we can eat god damned insects instead of meat.

          I am also sure of another thing, billionaires like John Kerry, Bill Gates, and Al Gore will be eating pounds of the best cuts of juicy red meat while you eat your fucking crickets.

          I say lock and load and mow ’em down. Really, I am serious, kill ’em all.

        • “The problem (well, one of them) with “climate change” is it’s based on predictions”
          And all the short term calamitous predictions of the climate alarmists have failed to come true. All of them. Yet we are to believe the “new and improved” predictions are accurate?

    • Tony Heller does a great job documenting alterations of the temperature record. But since 1979, two volunteer Ph.D. scientists (see Roy Spencer website) have provided an alternative global average temperature data called UAH, based on satellite measurements. Their data show warming from 1979 to 2014, and no warming since 2014. Not that the historical data matter much.

      Predictions of a coming climate change crisis are NOT based on historical temperature data. Global Whiners predict future warming at a rate twice as fast as the cherry picked 1975 to 2014 period. And never mind the lack of warming since 2014. There are no historical data to support the prediction. And there are no climate data for the future. That means predictions of climate doom are NOT based on any data. Predictions not based on data are not science — science requires data. Not that wrong climate predictions (since 1979) are ever science.

      The Zeller study is wrong. The temperature of a planet depends on incoming solar energy versus outgoing infrared energy of the planet trying to cool itself. Greenhouse gases impede outgoing infrared energy.

      But the effect of CO2 above 400ppm (now at 420ppm, or 0.042%) is too small to harm anyone.

      Life did not end when CO2 of Earth’s atmosphere was 4000ppm long ago.

      The primary argument of “skeptic” scientists, ON OUR SIDE, is that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm, so can not harm anyone. After the prior +50% increase of CO2 since the mid-1800s harmed no one, I think that would be obvious to everyone.

      In fact, more CO2 in the atmosphere is great for plant growth. 800ppm would be better than the current 420ppm. Greenhouse owners CO2 enrich, spending their own money, to the 1000ppm to 1500ppm level.

      • quote: “The temperature of a planet depends on incoming solar energy versus outgoing infrared energy of the planet trying to cool itself. Greenhouse gases impede outgoing infrared energy.”

        They also absorb the radiation going down and thus the effect going up is a wash. Going down absorption + going up absorption = ZERO.

        Greenhouse gases absorb and immediately re-admit the radiation. Thus the higher CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere cools the earth because incoming solar energy (parallel rays) becomes scattered energy (in all directions).

        Thus increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere = earth cooling, which is exactly what the NASA OCO satellite measured (but no one talks about because it does not fit the political narrative).

        And the alt theory by Nikolev and Zeller is ridiculed because it presents an hypothesis which mocks CO2 driven warming, as it claims only the atmospheric pressure and distance from sun determines temperature. The science world is invested in the CO2 theory and thus attacks any alt theory, including Anthony Watts:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/

        But the Zeller curve speaks for itself:
        https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/PressureNikolovZeller.jpg

        “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
        ― Richard P. Feynman

        CO2 driven warming is wrong, that is why the models fail, that is why temperatures do not conform to their theory. Temperatures on earth are not driven by small changes in a trace gas, which is ridiculous on the face of it, when you have this raging ball of fire – the sun sending heat our way.

        • The effect of CO2 is accurately measured with laboratory spectroscopy, and included in the HITRAN and MODTRAN databases used by all scientists, including “skeptic” scientists ON OUR SIDE. CO2 does not warm anything. CO2 impedes cooling, along with water vapor and clouds (although clouds are more effective in blocking incoming sunlight than they are in blocking upwelling infrared energy, so they cool the planet)

          Temperatures on Earth’s surface are the NET result of MANY local, regional and global climate change variables. CO2 is one of many variables. For that reason, the effect of CO2 (which is small at current concentrations) can be offset by other climate change variables.

          The global average temperature can fall (1940 to 1975), rise (1975 to 2014) or remain steady (2014 to 2023) while the CO2 level is rising.

          Incoming solar energy, measured at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) by satellites, has declined slightly since the 1970s. Therefore, TOA is NOT a cause of the global warming from 1975 to 2014.

          Assuming measurements of the global average temperature by UAH satellites are accurate, there are only two possible causes of that 1975 to 2014 warming: More sunlight is reaching Earth’s surface because of fewer clouds and less air pollution, and/or less energy is escaping from Earth to the infinite heat sink of space due to an increasing greenhouse effect.

          Air pollution has been declining since 1980 — that causes global warming.

          The greenhouse effect has been increasing for a few decades, measured with CERES satellites, and that causes global warming.

          The effect of clouds is unknown — local cloud measurements can be made, but a global average of cloudiness is not available.

          I would guess that over 99.9% of scientists on this planet accept the fact that there is a greenhouse effect, and CO2 is part of it. In my 25+ years of climate science reading, I have never read an author claiming there is no greenhouse effect, and that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, but I assume 0.1% only because there must be some.

          Funny thing about a consensus in science — sometimes the consensus is right. I know that statement violates the EP Rule of Truth: ‘Everything the government says is wrong’. But reality is that not everything from government — including government climate scientists — is wrong. Governments might be 90% wrong, but they are not 100% wrong.

      • Warming bias firmly in place in modern science. Because we have decided that earth is warming by CO2, tree ring data which shows modern cooling must be wrong:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

        “Loehle also published in 2008 a paper that described why tree rings can not be trusted as a proxy for past temperature variations. Tree ring data have what is called a “divergence problem” in the late 20th Century where the tree ring data data suggests cooling, when in fact there has been warming”

        What they fail to do is see that their bias and prejudice is causing them to make a fatal observation mistake that CO2 is going up and temperatures are going down negates the theory, that CO2 driven warming is a belief like religion, that the modern Global Warming by CO2 theory is bunk, that we are still in the ice age, and all the rage of climate change was driven by the modern warming blip on a longer term cool off.

        When the current interglacial slowly terminates temperatures will fall regardless of how bad scientists massage the data and make it look like warming. The simple fact is that in these inflationary times, money talks, and scientists who need grant money will whore themselves to any political narrative to get grants for their departments.

        Nature does not care what you believe, or what political narratives are in play at any given moment in history. CO2 has never driven temperature, not now, not back in time, and not in the future. What that means is ice age progression will continue regardless of what dunce Al Gore says. And what that also means our culture is demonically influenced by false narratives and steering itself off a cliff. Killing cows to meet net zero standards is the height of insanity.

        • Tree rings reflect precipitation, temperature and other variables. They are not pure temperature proxies.

          The effect of CO2 is measured and there is much evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect. One example, that you most likely never heard of, is the temperature of Antarctica.

          Most of the continent has had no warming since reliable measurements began in the 1970s. The reason for that is the permanent temperature inversion over most of Antarctic. That temperature inversion prevents greenhouse warming. The lack of warming of most of Antarctica is some of the evidence of greenhouse gas warming. The only (minor) warming of that continent is local areas of the ice shelf directly over underseas volcanoes, which are unrelated to CO2 or solar energy.

          If global warming was caused by more incoming solar energy, Antarctica would have a warming trend during the portion of the year when sunlight is available (October through March). But that is NOT happening.

        • I’ve cut down trees over 100 years old in Missouri. Those rings pertinent to the dust bowl era are hard to count. Because it was exceptionally dry. Not exceptionally hot.

  10. ‘Elon Musk’s evil insight was that “electrification” could be sold.’ — eric

    And Eeeeelon sold it, from the get-go, by claiming in March 2007 that the Tesla Roadster achieved an EPA-equivalent mileage of one hundred thirty-five (135) mpg using EPA criteria.

    This ignores, of course, the thermal efficiency of the electrical generating plant — often in the 35% range. Meaning, 135 mpg x 0.35 = 47 mpg. Good, but no better than a TDI diesel.

    Sure enough, the window sticker of the 2009 Tesla Roadster showed an EPA-rated energy consumption of 105 mpg city and 102 mpg highway.

    To credulous EPA apparatchiks, this seemed utterly magical. It was as if the conspiratorially withheld 100 mpg carburetor of our youth had suddenly materialized — but without an engine or a gas tank. Wunderbar!

    But it’s only a miracle in the minds of the thermodynamically illterate, who have now embarked on a crackpot global crusade to overturn our entire transport technology, as if Eeeeelon’s fatuous claim had come down from the clouds on a stone tablet.

    Ship of fools, ship of fools …

    • But…but..surely, driving heavier, more powerful vehicles in no way would require the use of more energy…because there’s magic in them thar ‘lectric wires! Pfffft, poor fool, thinking that electricity has to obey the laws of thermodynamics!C’mon, I seen it on the tee-vee!

  11. I have a solution.

    I think we should shorten the mile. Just take the current length of the mile and multiply by 0.7. That should improve fuel economy enough for every manufacturer to reach the 50 MPG CAFE average, no problem. And your EV range will magically increase, just like that! No more range anxiety after 200 miles or so, now you’ll not have to worry until about 300 miles! Driving too fast causes accidents? Not when the “new mile” is 3,696 feet (of course the foot will be adjusted as well), so 75 MPH will “feel like” 52 old MPH. Oh sure we’ll all know that it’s fake, but eventually we’ll get used to it.

    It works great for money right?

    • Sounds good. Progress on every front. We’ll all live in bigger houses with bigger lots. Next step will be applying this to other measurements, food and beverages will be affordable and no one will be obese ever again.

      The few “old” normal weight people will be anorexic though. 🙁

      EX- 300# X .70= 210# HEALTHY!!!!

    • > “new mile” is 3,696 feet
      1km = 3280.84 ft
      Why not make the two lengths equivalent?
      (if you are going to change something – not that I am in favor of it)

  12. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, all of this EV bullshit will be moot when the FRN fiat paper becomes worthless.

    • Yes Mike. The Apathy meter is pegging. Florida takes on Disney,,, still millions of family’s visit. The big bad and fake virus is real because to say otherwise, after one has said they had it, will make one look a bit foolish.
      How about the Nazi’s in Ukraine are fighting for our freedumbs. That’s a good one. That we fought the Nazi’s in WWII,,, no one remembers.
      Did you know that Russia is still sending gas to Europe via Ukraine and paying Ukraine the transit fees? What a war!
      Then there’s the US Digital Dollar to start testing in July which when implemented will make everything else they have done look like a walk in the park.
      Tranny hour, Sex books showing perverted sex in elementary schools… Who cares. You are now considered a terrorist if you complain.

      Carlin says it best,,, Nobody seems to notice,,, Nobody seems to care.
      Ken says,,, until it’s too late. Then they’ll say they never knew!

      • ‘Tranny hour’ — ken

        Awesome ZeroHedge headline today:

        Target Plunges For 10th Day As Boycott Leads To “Traffic Weakness”, JPM Downgrade Adds To Groom And Doom

        Groom and Doom: hilarious … except for the kids, of course.

    • I agree Mike, a great many things are going to become moot when the dollar loses its reserve status. When no one can pay you and you can’t afford to buy anything anyway. I only pray that the Snowflake SJW Wokesters get the axe first.

  13. Meanwhile, the dumbing-down of driving continues apace:

    “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the top federal roadway safety agency, proposed a rule Wednesday to require all new vehicles to include automatic emergency brakes.”

    https://tinyurl.com/2rrw8yat

    Eric, do you know if we’ll still be allowed to turn it off?

  14. I miss the old days of my Toyota pickup (pre-Tacoma) which was pure simplicity. It wasn’t fast. It really didn’t get great gas mileage. Mine didn’t even have carpet and had vinyl seats. But it was cheap to buy, cheap to run, easy to fix and had an honesty that modern cars filled with regulatory bloat and ginormous screens can’t compete. It towed my little john boat and hauled furniture like a champ. And it was unkillable.

    We have the Maverick now, yes. But it has tons of air bags, a giant screen, a turbo or hybrid engine and more computers than it should.

    Shame is the soft, luxury-loving people of today wouldn’t buy a Toyota pickup equipped like mine.

    • I agree, Mantis –

      My ’02 Nissan Frontier is a lot like your old Toyota. Every time I drive it, I am reminded why I used to like cars (and trucks). And still do – if they’re old.

    • I’ve got a ’97 Tacoma, which is definitely pre modern Tacoma, which I often confuse with a full size truck. I don’t use it much anymore, maybe a couple of thousand miles per year, or less, because my need for it has diminished. Consequently it only has about 120k miles on it. It’s in more danger of rusting out than it is malfunctioning. Hell, if they sold them, I would love to buy a new one like it, or even an old big three pickup. Late ’60s early ’70s or so.

      • Those older trucks were workhorse and looked really good. I watched an old rerun of ‘Rockford Files’. That 79 GMC Sierra with a 400ci in it looks far better and is far more useful than trucks today which appear to be a 4-door car with a small sand box attached. Had to use a trailer on my 16 Frontier to haul some ply and 10-12 foot 2x4s, blocks etc.

  15. One thing people fail to consider is the proprietary nature of the battery. You can get pretty “creative” with an ICE vehicle and still drive it when the correct parts are not available: think Cuba. An EV will just be like a camera that takes that proprietary battery pack that’s unavailable; just another piece of garbage going to the landfill.

    I’ve mentioned to several people that the EV’s owners manual probably says to avoid supercharging it because the life of that battery will be shortened. They weren’t told that either. So what happens if you live in a non single family home? In the words of that famous Jedi Knight; Yoda: “Screwed You Are”

    • Given time and opportunity there will be aftermarket batteries. Canon cameras come to mind. There’s a healthy aftermarket for batteries because Canon charges an arm and a leg for extras, and their chargers are basically a trickle charger from the early ’00s. But if you put one of these batteries into the camera you get a warning. They still work fine, just that Canon feels it necessary to scare you (and void your warranty, as if that meant anything).

      I think the same thing will eventually happen with EVs, especially if Chinese cars are brought into the US market. Most Chinese engineered products are more hackable than US, because of the lack of intellectual property protection. So your EV mechanic will install a new battery pack and flash open firmware. Might even be better than factory at that point.

      • “Given time and opportunity there will be aftermarket batteries.”
        For cameras maybe. I don’t think the EV market will get that time. At least I hope not. Few can afford one, and most of those who can afford one and want one have one. Many of those that do have one say they will never own another. I think 80% was the number I read somewhere.
        The difference between the Chinese and US market is that in China they really do have a serious air pollution problem to solve, while the US doesn’t. I don’t think that market is going to travel well.

  16. I never understood the whole “zero to 60” mantra car manufacturers push as one of the big selling points in buying a new vehicle.

    Other than merging on to a highway, which most vehicles are already going 40 miles on hour before they have to merge with other vehicles going 65-70, when would one ever have the need to go “zero to 60?”

    I don’t know anyone who has ever used their vehicle to drive on a track or dragstrip, the only place I can see where going “zero to 60” the fastest would matter.

    I could care less about buying a new car that can go “zero to 60” in 3 seconds. I want a vehicle that doesn’t cost the price of a small home; doesn’t require brakes every 15,000 miles; has good mileage (be it gas or battery); doesn’t have a crap load of sensors that break down and light up the dashboard like a christmas tree, etc.

    Speaking of Chevettes, my first car was a 1981 Pontiac Acadian (a Chevette sold in Canada). I loved that car. Four doors, cherry red exterior and a black interior with the softest fake leather seats of any car I have been in. It was already rusting when I bought it in 1985 for $1,200 (it came with 4 extra snow tires on rims). By the time I gave the car to my brother in 1988, the driver’s side floor had rusted out (fumes anyone?). It was still drivable and a good little winter rat.

    You never see any Chevettes on the road. Probably all in junk yards in a big pile of rust. RIP.

    • I agree, Pug –

      The best-selling vehicles of all time – models like the Model T and Model A, the VW Beetle and the Toyota Corolla – were all simple, durable machines that gave excellent value for the money.

      Almost no such vehicles exist on the new car market anymore.

      • There are a couple of standouts that I can think of right now: Toyota Camry (non-turbo, port fuel injection and normal slushbox tranny) and Honda Civic Sport (non-turbo four cyl with 6 speed manual tranny). Both are decently priced too. That said, of course both have moron-driver safety features, touch screens and OBD II data loggers so they can rat out the driver (perhaps they even transmit the data log over-the-air to the hive through Vehicle OTA Data Logging and Updates).

        • The Camry has an 8-speed overdrive transmission since the 2018 model year which makes me wonder about the durability.

          When I bought my 2018 Camry, one of the piece of paper I signed was an acknowledgement that the vehicle would use wireless technology to communicate with the hive mind.

    • Indeed, how many drivers out there are going to push their car to go 0-60 in 4 seconds or less? Most aren’t capable of handling it, and most would be terrified to ride in one that is doing it.

  17. “Sustainability”, so says a government that is 30+ trillion dollars in debt, and rising. It’s just a trigger word. There is no such thing as sustainable anything. All things end, whether it please us or not.
    Of course we all know that the purpose of electrification has nothing to do with sustainability, except that of the power of the state. The purpose is a centralized power supply, with a switch to turn you off. To get us out of our motor vehicles, and thus make us stationary targets. To get the rest of us all living a much lower standard of living, while those imposing it suffer nothing.
    Psychopaths will psychopath, and the gullible will gullible.

    • Power AND money. When shale hit big the traders had no idea was hit them. $40 ($8.85 in 1972 dollars) oil wasn’t supposed to happen after 2010. The Soviet Union spilled more oil than it sold. Biden’s first 100 days fatwas included pulling gas and oil leases from public land. Last summer he set aside thousands of acres of gasland under a new national monument. Why? Because it’s too damn cheap and people have their bets lined up for less, not more. Meanwhile, China and India are laughing at the west, playing the Russian oil arbitrage and selling it right into the EU (who’s pretending it’s not Russian product). They’re probably still using the pipelines that run through Ukraine to transport it. Those same pipelines that started this whole mess to begin with…

      Get rid of demand and you’ll destroy the suppliers. Can’t make money when there’s plenty.

      • If you destroy the suppliers, demand will increase because there won’t be plenty because of fewer suppliers. The economy works such things out, until the Psychopaths In Charge stick their grubby mitts into it. Which they always, always do.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here