Category: blather & bleating

Credit where credit is due. Steven Hayward at Powerline came up with that vision. His article is in reference to a Wired magazine article on the Spiraling Environmental Cost of Our Lithium Battery Addiction. And finally Thomas Lifeson wraps up with his thoughts on the topic.

In this blog, I have written a number of articles about the illusion that electric vehicles are some sort of panacea for the environmental issues involved in driving gas powered vehicles. New to the public conversation is the admission, firstly by Elon Musk and then by Akio Toyoda that, there is not enough electricity to power all the electric vehicles governments and greens want to put on the roads around the world. This sums it up nicely:

Toyoda is getting at two things. One, EVs are not powered by magical unicorn emissions, they are powered by the means we use to generate electricity. In Japan, the United States, and everywhere else, that’s fossil fuels to the tune of a huge majority of our electric power generation (61% in the U.S., with wind and solar making up about 17%, while Japan relies more heavily on nuclear power than most due to its lack of indigenous oil). Imagine taking every car in Japan or the United States and powering it not by gasoline or diesel, but by electricity. This will require a dramatic expansion of the amount of electric power we currently generate. There is no getting around this fact. We would be displacing gasoline or diesel for another power source. We’re still pulling something out of the ground and burning it in some way. The main question is where is it being burned?

Throwing all the eggs in the EV basket is a march of folly. I’m fine with people making the choice to buy and drive an EV. Its always good to have options. I just wish the conversation about the efficacy of EVs was honest and forthright. I don’t think they should be publicly subsidized — let the market decide. In markets where they have removed the subsidy on EVs, sales have plummeted. So what does that tell you. And I totally agree with Toyoda that governments mandating EVs is ultimately going to be a disaster.

As I have documented throughout this blog, EVs are not what they are made out to be. Here is an interesting article from Real Clear Energy, written by Geoffrey Pohanka, a third-generation car dealer. It basically debunks the cost efficiency of EVs, and dumps on the amount of time it takes to recharge an EV. The cumulative time is hundreds of hours per year.

Fast chargers will bring the battery only to an 80% total charge due to the limitations of lithium batteries. Charging above 80% will damage the battery. Since I arrived at the charging station with ten percent capacity remaining, I received an additional 70% charge, which gave me about 190 miles total range. It required one hour and ten minutes. The cost was $21.07, or 43 cents per kW. The cost would be about 34 cents per kW if I joined Electrify America for four dollars per month. Filling my gasoline vehicle for the same range would cost less – about $13. Charging an EV at a fast charger costs more per mile of range than filling up a gasoline-powered vehicle.

EVs are impractical for a long trip. I can’t imagine pulling over for a one hour recharge every 300km. My car is good for about 1,000km on a full tank. Refilling takes a few minutes. For the distance I can drive on one tank, an EV would require three recharges at an hour each. No thanks.

The other drawback to EVs is their higher cost. The MSRP of the 2021 Hyundai Kona Ultimate I have been charging is $46,985. The same model powered by gasoline has an MSRP of $31,370, or over $15,000 less. I have read that one reason for the price differential is that to manufacture a 1,000-pound battery requires the processing of 50,000 pounds of ore, and one must move 500,000 pounds of overburden to get the ore. The lithium, cobalt, copper, and rare-earth minerals required to manufacture the battery largely come from overseas. Eighty percent of battery manufacturing takes place in China, so this is likely to have an impact on our trade imbalance and energy independence.

EVs are clearly not the panacea they are being made out to be. They are expensive, will require considerable time to maintain, and are in fact environmentally unfriendly by the time time they are bought. But this is all part of the climate alarmist hokum. You can certainly expect the EV drum to keep beating. Just pay attention to the fine print. You are not buying what you are being sold.

Surprising science — There’s no such thing as clean energy. New research concludes that “clean energy” is, well, basically the “free lunch” that is never free. The study, Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018, establishes that renewable energy is cripplingly expensive, hopelessly unreliable, massacres wildlife, destroys landscapes, destabilizes the grid, harms indigenous peoples, and causes climate change.

The authors demonstrate renewables – mainly wind and solar – do little if anything to reduce carbon dioxide emissions but are very good at wasting eye-watering sums of taxpayers’ money.

The world spent US$3.7 trillion on climate change projects over the eight-year period 2011–2018. A total of 55% of this sum was spent on solar and wind energy, while only 5% was spent on adapting to the impacts of extreme weather events. The lead author, Coilín Óh Aiseadha, states “It cost the world $2 trillion to increase the share of energy generated by solar and wind from half a percent to three percent, and it took eight years to do it. What would it cost to increase that to 100%? And how long would it take?” Even Gavin Newsome has come clean and says its time to get realistic about the failure of renewable energy as a viable alternative energy source to fossil fuels.

One of the rationales used for wind power is that it reduces man made climate change. But, the study shows it actually causes climate change at a local level, changing wind patterns, temperatures, precipitation, even causing flash flooding. For example, wind turbines can have significant local or regional effects on climate. Large-scale wind farms with tall wind turbines can have an influence on the weather, possibly on climate, due to the combined effects of the wind velocity deficit they create, changes in the atmospheric turbulence pattern they cause, and landscape roughness they enhance.

Do you think electric cars are the way to the future? Think again. I have blogged a number of articles refuting electric cars being clean, when you consider the whole life-cycle of the car. Take a look at cobalt mining, required to make batteries for e-vehicles. Mining has severe impacts on the health of women and children in mining communities, where the mining is often done in unregulated, small-scale, “artisanal” mines. Lithium extraction, also required for manufacturing batteries for e-vehicles, requires large quantities of water, and can cause pollution and shortages of fresh water for local communities.

Frankly, there is just WAY TO MUCH to summarize here. I am a humble conduit to greater knowledge. In addition to the Medium article and the original study referenced above, James Delingpole at Breitbart does a good job summarizing the study.

This is too rich. Its like the climate alarmist piñata has been whacked and the clean energy myth is raining down on us. And its not acid rain. Its way past time to get a grip. The bubble has been burst, and its time to have a fact-based discussion about energy.

For the last couple years, this blog has focused on confronting climate alarmism with actual science and facts. However, here is an Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and All Belgian Media.

In a nutshell, time to end the faux covid panic mongering and get back to normal — immediately.

The most interesting recommendation is to get rid of masks. “Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections.” In addition, the accumulated CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism which affects our immunity. Basically, the air environment in a mask fails to meet the labor code for safe air.

UPDATE

Oh, and the CDC says masks are ineffective.

Oh, and the WHO says stop using lockdowns.

Man, its hard to keep up.

Whoda thunk it. Solar Panels Produce Tons of Toxic Waste—Literally.

According to cancer biologist David H. Nguyen, PhD, toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic.

It is no wonder that Chinese factories, when confronted with the exorbitant costs (both financial and environmental) of decomposing solar panel chemicals properly, prefer to release them into the environment rather than dispose of them in an environmentally safe manner.

Stanford Magazine also points out that solar energy has a higher carbon footprint than wind and nuclear energy. Ray Weiss, a professor of Geochemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains that a number of solar panels release nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), a chemical compound 17,000 times worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. As recently as 2015, he explained that many manufacturers were still struggling to figure out how to contain its release into the atmosphere.

Green energy? I think not.

By now, pretty much everyone has experienced smoke from the wildfires ravaging the three western US states, California, Oregon and Washington. No, this is not due to climate change. Its forestry mismanagement. The fuel load on the ground has been accumulating for decades, drying out, and waiting to catch fire.

Here is an excellent backgrounder on the issue by David Stockman.

Researchers believe that in prehistoric California, between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned naturally each year. Between 1982 and 1998, state land managers burned about 30,000 acres per year. And between 1999 and 2017, the number dropped to 13,000 acres annually. It is estimated that California needs to burn 20 million acres to stabilize the system.

This was a fire crisis waiting to happen. Don’t believe the lying politicians that are attempting to evade their own culpability in this. No, earth is not pissed off and exacting revenge on humans. This is stupid humans reaping the consequences of their own incompetence.

Read the article by Stockman.

ADDITIONAL READING

“Why are there so many wildfires in California, but few in the Southeastern US” — from the Foundation for Economic Education.

“How Environmentalists Destroyed California’s Forests — from The Spectator

And who’d a thunk that climate change stopped at the Canada – US border. Canada Wildfires at Lowest Level for Years. It seems that climate change has only infected forests in California. Not Canada. Not the Southeastern US. Not Europe. Funny that.

from Dr Roy Spencer’s blog:

After 50 years of predictions and observations (1970-2019), what do we know? For the Midwest U.S. in the summer (June-July-August), there has been almost no statistically significant warming in the last 50 years, whereas the CMIP6 models appear to be producing even more warming than the CMIP5 models did.

The observed 50-year trend is only 0.086 C/decade, while the CMIP5 average model trend is 4X as large at 0.343 C/decade, and the CMIP6 trend is 5.7X as large at 0.495 C/decade.

This real observed data, against the predictions of the climate models shows unequivocally that predictions are consistently biased upwards, and cannot be relied upon for policy decisions. And yet, this is what the UN IPCC reports to influence policy decisions.

As with Covid models, same as it ever was. Build models which output the desired outcome. Fake news. Fake science.

Perhaps this is also why global grain production is at record highs. Rather than the scorched earth climate fear mongers would have us believe.

Well worth the read and your consideration.

Censored by Forbes, where the article was originally published because, well, it just doesn’t suit the narrative. But, we know that, don’t we.

Up until now, Shellenberger did not speak out, for fear of retribution and being cancelled:

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.” 

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse. 

And, here is a twitter thread for added amusement.

So, here we have daily temperature readings from the same place 100 years apart. The world has been ravaged by global warming in the latter half of the century. The debate is over. Climate deniers can just shut up! Here is the definitive proof that global warming is not a hoax!

Daily temperatures for Saskatchewan in 1919 and 2019.

fail.

Global warming is a hoax. Suck it up, buttercup.

not …